My article in Liverpool Confidential....

http://www.liverpoolconfidential.com/index.asp?Sessionx=IpqiNwEiNwfnI0qiNwF6IHqi&realname=Pride_and_prejudice

Some interesting comments - here is the text

AUGUST Bank Holiday is all about civic festivals, and not just Mathew Street. Every year at this time, the call goes out: Liverpool needs its own Gay Pride celebrations.

This is inevitably accompanied by a wistful glance 33 miles east to Manchester, to compare the two cities in terms of their gay-friendliness or homophobia. The conclusion is often unfavourable to Liverpool, and issues like a local Pride, and a more high-profile, developed “gay quarter” are often viewed as ways of making improvements.

Liverpool is not Manchester, and even if there was a concerted effort to improve or promote Liverpool as a gay-friendly destination, with the policies to accompany it, the outcome would not be a clone of Manchester. And is that what anyone really wants?

When these conversations begin, I often feel like the resident wet weekend (other than the one which will inevitably accompany the Manchester event), expressing doubts as to whether either of these things will really make any great difference.

Let’s start with Manchester's Gay Village. The “village” idea has always been more about hope than reality. It is essentially a commercial zone where there are selections of drinking establishments, most of which are owned by the major breweries, all of which are either gay-identified or gay-friendly. The old chestnut about the invasion of hen nights and tourists is well-worn and, given that barriers and entrance fees exist only for the duration of Pride, where gay people have to pay to enter “their” village, this is unlikely to change. There is a barbers, a taxi firm, a GP surgery, and a florist. But does this consist of a village – or simply a specific commercial district? And while, at least, the volume of drinking spaces does mean some variety, there is a clear tendency for a shift in at least some of Manchester’s lesbian and gay socialising towards the more cultural Northern Quarter, or suburbs such as Chorlton.

The Village was the product of particular circumstances. It emerged in a political climate where a combination of equality activism, sympathetic businesses, beneficial planning and regeneration initiatives, and a (pro-gay) city council wanting to take a pop at the (anti-gay) Tory government of the day came together at an opportune moment.

It is no coincidence that no other city has actually produced anything similar. The same reference points may be used – zones, villages, and so on – but Manchester’s Gay Village is a product of a particular time and place. It developed organically, and if Manchester was starting from scratch today in terms of creating a gay-friendly commercial zone, then I think it certain that the outcome would look nothing like the Gay Village. And the Village itself is not at all as some of the more visionary hopes for it at its outset.

So, when discussing Liverpool’s commercial gay scene, I would question whether the Village analogy is either helpful, or particularly useful. Liverpool is not Manchester: and even if there was a concerted effort to improve or promote Liverpool as a gay-friendly destination, with the policies to accompany it, the outcome would not be a clone of Manchester. And is that what anyone really wants?

Much the same can be said about Pride. In recent years, Gay Prides have been contracting rather than expanding, and with the many legal changes which have benefited gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, the initial reason for their existence has changed.

Gay Prides can be an exhilarating experience. My first Prides were in the late 80s, the days of Thatcher and Section 28, and they were times when there was clearly all to fight for. That hasn’t entirely gone away. Recent events have demonstrated that the issue of homophobic violence remains all too real, and the presence of people who are proud of and open about their sexuality has been and remains a vital element in combating this sort of threat.

But would a Liverpool Pride really assist this? The easiest sort of Pride to organise is the standard formula of “march followed by party in the park”. Sometimes the march ends up being abandoned altogether, or entirely overshadowed by the party. And is it really worth all the effort to provide a one day event where people can get pissed and dance to Kylie?

It’s almost as if that is typical of what gay and lesbian people do all the time – whereas I would argue that those who use the commercial scene regularly make up a small proportion of the gay population.

I’m not a party-pooper, and I have been to fantastic Prides in San Francisco and Amsterdam which are major events in those cities’ calendars for the whole community to enjoy. But given that Liverpool Pride isn’t going to be on that scale, I would question whether it is the best use of time, money and energy. Liverpool does have both a specific lesbian and gay film festival (Outsiders), and a yearly arts/cultural festival (Homotopia) and they are both things which few other cities have. Perhaps our energies might be better spent looking for and developing initiatives which won’t turn out to be pale copies of those which exist elsewhere.

And in doing this, local councils and other providers need to ensure that community development money and necessary support is provided to ensure that Liverpool and the rest of Merseyside becomes a genuinely inclusive and gay-friendly environment – and that means a far more profound cultural shift than simply creating pedestrianised commercial zones or single-day drink-fests.

Does Cameron agree with this?

The Policy Exchange, Cameron's favourite think-tank, has advocated an abandonment of regional strategy and suggests that we should all move down south instead....

This isn't going to happen. I'm not going to look at the various reasons as to why this is not a sensible idea. What is clear is that this proposal would be unpopular in the South. It would mean huge amounts of building across the green belt. It would certainly threaten the so-called green strategy of the Conservatives. And how exactly would it fit with the development of stable and supportive communities and greater social cohesion and participation if we are all living in new towns? Not to mention the quality of life in heavily built up areas far from the coast. I can't somehow think that people in those areas would be happy to suddenly find a million new houses created around them. The tendency would be to create very inward-looking and privatised residential areas - which wouldn't contribute to the sort of social setting the conservatives supposedly support.

The answer is to move jobs to people, but that requires something other than the workings of the free market, which does not create anything approaching sustainability or coherence. Sadly, much regional policy has also been equally inept.

Oh, and all the authors of this report are based in London!

And there seems to be an assumption that everyone can be prosperous. Not the case. Capitalism requires winners and losers. You would simply shift problems elsewhere.

Georgia, Russia and the like

The problem with this entire question is that there is a lack of consistency.

I'm no great fan of Russia but if one thing has managed to retain its salience it is the pull of romantic Russian nationalism. It is very much the basis of the appeal of Putin.

In addition, the support of small nations to achieve independent governance is clear enough, Kosovo being the latest example.

In this situation, isn't it clear that the two renegade Georgian provinces should be able to return to Russia if they wish? They are not ethnically Georgian, their inhabitants regard themselves as Russian, and they are Russian citizens.

And whilst the Georgian leader may have designs on joining NATO, hasn't this been made extremely unlikely? Does NATO really want the equivalent of a yappy, bad tempered terrier snapping at the heels of the local Great Dane?

Boycott the Olympics

It has become crystal clear that the Chinese government's position on a range of human rights issues has not improved as a result of the Olympics. If anything, it has become worse.

The Olympics, that corrupt drug-fest of chemical endeavour and ridiculous nationalism, just about deserves the Chinese! I shall not be watching any of it, and I hope others will be joining me. The Chinese should have never been given such a free publicity opportunity in the first place, and given the widespread use of drugs, does the entire event have any credibility any more?

Some random thoughts

A few interesting titbits to chew on.....

I really ought not to start with the Church. But I have to! Rowan Williams has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that his position is simply not credible. Those of you who have been involved ot exposed to far left politics will be aware of the idea of democratic centralism. This is the expectation that one's own publicly stated position will change in line with the expressed view of the party. RW has demonstrated that his way of working is essentially the same. So, he holds his own view, but lies about it in public, and goes as far as to defend a view which he does not hold.

I don't honestly care if he can cite ecclesiological reasons for doing this. Its a form of 'heavenly deception': in colloquial terms, he lies, and misrepresents his true view. In doing so he entirely removes himself from any consideration of integrity. If you believe something, then you should say so and defend it. The alternative is that you are seen to be a duplicitous liar. the result of that is that you treat your supposed friends appallingly even though you supposedly hold views sympathetic to them. There simply in so excuse, no reasoning which can justify RW's stance. I can think of few people I despise more. He still has time to admit that he has lied and that he has been dishonest. But I don't think he is able to understand the depth of his hypocrisy and the lack of integrity he has.

Politics. Dearie me.....the comrades in my erstwhile party continue to tear each other to bits. The problem is that without a clear ideological reason for existence, one has to ask what the Labour party is for? More and more, we have a public choice of A and B, both following essentially the same path. This has its advantages. The Tories won't be repealing the gay rights legislation and have made it clear that they accept the progressive outcome of legislative changes. This comes as no surprise, since the changes have proved to be largely uncontroversial, albeit some institutions on both sides of the debate have made a pigs ear out of implementation (think Church of England, Islington Council). But it does mean that political choices will be based largely on who the electorate are less bored with.

More later....

Religionist symbols and the law

I can't quite decide what I think about this.

On the one hand, I can't really be sympathetic to the pernickety policies in both workplace and school which make such a song-and-dance about jewellery, which the religious symbols usually are declared unacceptable within.

On the other hand, there are certainly situations where I think some religious symbols might be considered problematic. The full veil may not be suitable in all work environments where communication is needed. There is also a case for ensuring the religion remains in the private sphere but until Christian religionists accept this, they cannot impose it upon minority religions

But when it comes to a bangle - really, does it cause that much of a problem? It is well known that it is a symbol for Sikhs and it doesn't really cause all that many problems.

I am quite sure if there was a Christian equivalent - something which was considered to be an integral part of following the religion, then there wouldn't be so much fuss made....

Mary Honeyball - well said

It is such a relief when a politician doesn't spend all their time crawling and slobbering over evil organisations such as Vatican plc.

Mary Honeyball MEP has been doing a sterling job at exposing their hypocrisy and their underhand attempt to impose their religionism upon those of us who choose to have nothing at all to do with Catholicism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/20/cardinalssins
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/25/catholicism.eu
http://maryhoneyballmep.blogspot.com/

Glasgow East

The victory of the SNP came as no surprise to me. In one way it was quite refreshing, as their candidate was determinedly uncharismatic, rather like an animated garden gnome. But most of all, their platform was very much one of the promotion of social democratic policies, which Labour ought to be carrying out.

I was a Blairite once. Correction. I still think that there were aspects of the Blair government policies which I welcomed and think were very positive. However, their mistake was to be too entranced with their huge majority. The problem is that MP's never want to consider losing their seats. Governments do not need majorities of over 100 to govern, and in gaining such a majority, there were Labour MP's in some very unlikely places, who only voted Labour simply because the Tories were so inept and unelectable. The voters in some of those seats are and remain right-of-centre, and it meant that Labour MP's were constantly looking over their shoulders, fearful of doing anything which might possibly upset those fairweather voters. Of course, the vast majority of them fled after 1997, and simply didn't vote in 2001. By 2005 some had returned, and who knows, were it not for the presence of Dracula, a hung parliament may have been likely. Since then the Tories have become credible, international trends have led to economic downturn, and Labour have managed to upset and annoy almost everyone.

The core Labour vote see little in the way of genuine redistribution and a demonisation of the poor. The middle class guardianista vote ( which is obviously people like me) liked the cultural liberalism of NL but we don't like the foreign policy and are often in the position of seeing little real difference between what Labour in government is doing and what the Tories are promising. Or the LD's , for that matter. three identikit centre parties. No wonder it becomes so easy just to shift to a fresher, brighter model.

Not being of the far left, I would simply want the government to return to essential social democratic values. Forget Essex Man, and gaining large parliamentary majorities - not needed for government. Look towards those who are simply not going to bother to vote in the next election but are still essentially Labour. There is such a thing as the electoral cycle, and it is likely that the Tories will be elected next time no matter what the government do, simply because most governments get voted out after a long time in office ( and sometimes when they don't the outcome is disastrous - the Tories should not have won in 92 and reaped the consequences). But some basic social democracy would be a good idea. For a start, a ban on bonuses to company directors, particularly those in the city. A more protectionist policy in terms of trade ( about time Fortress Europe really did come into existence!). Restructure of the tax system which is far too flat and taxes the low paid at a far too early rate. Abandonment of PFI. Windfall taxes on profiteers. We need a party which has a properly sceptical view of the market - for it is the free market which has caused the current problems. It cannot be the solution.

More conservative religionist nonsense

This time emanating from that well-known centre of progress and democracy, Sudan - how much easier it would be to take anything African religious leaders seriously if their countries didn't do so very much to give succour to colonialist sympathisers! In this case we are talking about a country where the Christians are so right wing that their ideals are little better than Sharia law, and where the country has been plagued with religious and communal violence, encouraged by the Church. They are so concerned to appear even more conservative than fundamentalist Muslims that they expect Anglicans to go down the same path, worldwide.

They are trying to blackmail the American church by telling them to get rid of Bishop Gene Robinson.

This particular Bishop said that he knows no gay people and that in Sudan "we do not have them"

In other words, too scared to be anything other than hidden because of the Muslims and the Christians. Delightful. And he thinks it right that Christians essentially support Sharia law so they don't lose support to fundamentalist Muslims. He thinks that its OK to be homophobic so, according to his warped logic, less people will be murdered by fundamentalist Muslims.

What rot. The thing which gets people murdered is the war between two sets of premodern religious extremists. They are two sides of the same coin. Muslims in Sudan hate Christians no matter what they happen to teach. Using the presence of liberal Christians in the West is a shameful distortion of his own country's lack of civilised values. If he was any sort of leader, he would be rejecting those premodern values.

I have a better idea

How about all you pre-modern primitive thinkers fuck off and play fundamentalism with one another - and whilst you are at it, lets have you stop asking all these terrible liberal countries for money. Now, that's something African countries are very good at - other than internet corruption scams! No more aid from these dreadful Western countries with their horrible liberal ideas. After all, how can you condemn Western morality on the one hand and be happy to accept its assistance on the other?

In any case, aid should only be given as long as population control is part of the package, and no support should be given to governments who will simply waste the money and have no democratic foundation. Ludicrous amounts ogf money have been wasted in Africa, and I thiunk that sometimes, we have to stand back and ask some hard questions. And I think it is my colleagues on the Left who have the most to answer - particularly the third world can do no wrong brigade.

Nick Clegg and taxation

I'm not keen on Nick Clegg. Given my current antipathy towards Labour, you would think that, recognising that there is really quite a large group of people who feel similarly, he would have the sense to look towards winning out votes. But not so.

The latest wheeze from this Cameron-lite insignificant nothingness is that he thinks taxation should be reduced. he makes the usual vacuous comments about how much scrapping ID cards would save - and , because he hasn't actually sat down and thought it through, then starts to go on about the savings which could be made through 'waste' reduction.

The Tories were always ranting on about this and they didn't appear to manage to do much about it for the 18 years they were in power. Its a smokescreen - and shows that, sadly, the LD's are really bereft of original and creative ideas. Yes - the taxation system is not progressive enough and, in particular is too high at its lowest end and too low at the higher end. But the idea that taxes overall could be cut without nit having a detrimental affect on services is moonshine. Clegg just isn't up top the job: he's a jumped up school prefect who seems to do little but try to sound like a weaker version of Cameron. Because that is actually what he is.

I won't vote for the sitting Labour MP in the constituency I will be voting in next time, so unless there's a Green or some sort of alternative candidate on the left to vote for this may be my first spoilt ballot paper.....

The proposed welfare reforms

I haven't read these in depth yet, but have heard the Minister responsible talk about them.

There seems to me to be a basic problem. I am quite happy about having personalised responses to unemployment. Makes sense. Encouraging private sector American companies to provide that service is another matter. I'm also OK about helping people in a practical and hands on way.

However, there are three major problems with this plan.
1. There are not enough full time jobs for everyone who wants them at wages which make it realistic for people to take them. Of course you will have seasonal minimum-wage work available in the Lake District - not a lot of use if you happen to have dependants and live in St. Helen's. So, yes, young people from Eastern Europe will come over and do them for a year before returning, and that is a lot simpler than trying to relocate a family to an expensive area and expecting them to survive on low wages.
2. Making empty threats about removing benefits from people with drug problems who won;t accept help is grandstanding. The main reason people don;t accept help is because what there is on offer is largely crap and based around becoming addicted to methadone instead of heroin. Proper rehab costs. You can't get that on the NHS
3. And this, to me, is the main issue. If there are necessary community based jobs which need doing, then why aren't these being created as proper jobs and ringfenced for the long term unemployed?

Israel

I tend to be something of an agnostic on the whole Middle East issue. The complexities of the situation are immense, and the intransigence of the participants such that it makes Paisley and Adams look like Liberal Democrats. I sympathise with the plight of the Palestinians, I also think Hamas is a pretty vile organisation and if I thought I was constantly at risk of being bombed I may react irrationally too. I also think that Israeli expansionism has brought much of its problems upon itself.

That being said. Let us be practical. There are always going to be a lot more Arabs in the Middle East than Israelis. With attitudes being as they are, can there ever be peace? Can a two-state solution ever work? And what, ultimately, matters more - peace in the region or the Zionist right of Israel to have their state there?

Reluctantly, it has to be the former. So, I think the mistake being made is not to question the sense of expecting there to be peace whilst Israel still exists. If land was needed for a safe space for Jewish people, then those responsible for their oppression should have provided it (Germany and Russia)- not displacement of another set of people to assuage the guilt of the west. There was a case for a safe space, I think that a quasi-religious claim to land should have been rejected.

I don't think that the continuation of Israel is feasible. Whether it be a good thing or not, is not the point. The point is, or should be, that its existence remains and will always be, a threat to world peace. I rather wish that were not the case, for there is much to admire about Israel - like being the only liberal and reasonably gay-friendly nation in that region, for example. But I simply don't see how the ring of hostile nations around it and ever going to be anything but hostile, and the impact that has on the stability of the region is obvious.

The anger of religionist conservatives

There are various ways that one can make a point. Sometimes, it takes a lot of work, making sure that you get everything right, that you dot the i's and cross the t's.

Other times, your opponents make it easy for you.

Take the arguments about gay equality. The reliance of opponents on essentially falling back on 'yuk-factor' arguments which were so blatantly homophobic those in the middle didn't want to be associated with them was a great boon to those working for equality.

We see much the same happening in the CofE. Basically, the conservatives are getting so ridiculously angry that they fail to see where they are falling into traps, or where their oft-heard cries that they really don't hate gays at all are belied by the sheer fury and nastiness of their pet blogs. The sheer loathing and personal nastiness they display to Bishop Gene Robinson is an example ( have a look at Stand Firm website for examples)

The problem they have is that they don't see how Gene comes over to those not involved. He is great on the media. Like ot loathe what he has to say, he has the common touch, and he comes over as warm and folksy as the good ol' Southern boy he is. And whilst he does this, his opponents get angrier and angrier. They just don't see how the average CofE parishioner isn't impressed with hecklers disturbing a church service - whether that be Peter Tatchell or some unnamed fundamentalist.

Then you have silliness such as trying to find out whether Gene Robinson is to celebrate the Eucharist whilst in the UK. Its obvious that no group is going to respond to an inquisitory email by a known opponent of gay equality who has set himself up as a professional anti-gay campaigner online (amusingly, one who started off ranting about how he preached without permission whereas he is not prevented from preaching - which has now been acknowledged). Yet this same person kept digging - and digging. And just doesn't see how he comes over and how the axe he has to grind is crowding out the issues and making him, and only him, look daft.

OK, we have our goons too - those who won't accept sensible compromises ( who really cares what CP's are called when they give you all the rights of civil marriage and when everyone calls it marriage anyway?), those who pursue agendas which don't have wider support (reduction of the general age of consent - I don't support that, I don't think any of the sensible groups do) - and those who manage to lose tribunals by their sheer ineptitude and failure to carry out basic procedures and treat everyone fairly.

But I think that sometimes, we end up winning arguments largely because of the inability of our opponents to argue cogently and because, quite simply, they are too furiously angry to appreciate their image to those who have no strong feelings.

Question

I wonder why those who claim to have altered their sexual orientation feel that they need to spend so much time online trying to convince themselves? If its not posts about how great it is to be heterosexual, its pictures of marital beds, wives, or offspring.

The insecurity is all too apparent, and mildly amusing that they seem to think that anyone is fooled.

Poor dears. Wonder if it stops them thinking about those broad backs, footballer's thighs and fat sausages when they do the biz with Wifey?

Knife crime

I don't intend to write much about this. If I had any coherent answer then I would be doing more than just writing about it on here.

Two points, though. There seems to be a lack of logic in the 'prison is the answer to everything' brigade point of view. They appear to argue, on the one hand, that we are in the grip of a liberal left establishment who won't adopt tough sentencing. They then argue that the only reason the government do not make prison sentences for knife possession mandatory is because there aren't enough room in the prisons.

Now, if we were dominated by liberal penal policy, then the prisons would be empty , wouldn't they, because none of these lefty do-gooders would ever send anyone to prison. In reality, the prison population is higher than ever before and prisons are bursting at the seams. So who exactly is sentencing all these people? The reality is that far from pursuing a liberal regime, there has been a singular lack of imagination and a continuation of the 'prison works' philosophy.

Which it clearly doesn't, or so many people wouldn't keep going back.

The other issue is the flawed idea of hospital visits. Restorative justice is a good idea, and it has a pedigree which displays its effectiveness ( as does community punishment if done properly). But I can't see what use random visits to hospital wards would be. bring offenders face to face with what they have done and the consequences, yes - but to try and do this with general incidents is pointless. Not to mention inappropriate in that environment.

Barmy libertarians at it again.....

Libertarians are nuts. Bonkers. They exist in some sort of parallel universe which believes that everyone can somehow do exactly as they wish to do without it affecting anyone else. Amusingly, some of the more loopy specimens loathe the police whilst supporting self-styled militias and wider gun ownership, whilst also affecting a hardline stance on law and order, usually tied up with a bit of good old fashioned racism.

The latest wheeze are whingeing on about speed cameras. Now, I wouldn't imagine that anyone likes them all that much. But the real complaint of the libby loons is that - wait for it - they are ' a tax on the motorist'.

Now, this may have escaped the attention of our free marketeer friends, but there is a simple answer to this, and its something they love ranting on about. personal responsibility. you see, people only have to pay fines when they speed. And, believe it or not, the aim of speed cameras is to act as a deterrent to people speeding. So, no speeding, no fines.
One can only assume that their love for 'Laura Norder' only extends to things which don't affect them. When, quite sensibly, cameras are introduced to deal with the unacceptably high deaths on the roads, the only reason they make a penny for the local authority is because stupid drivers are unable to take responsibility for their own speeding.

Therefore, they are not a tax on 'the motorist' but on the criminally irresponsible, who don't appear to realise that a car is a lethal weapon when driven too fast

Hypocrisy and Thatcher

In the news this weekend was a proposal that the evil hag who set out to destroy this city in the 1980's is to be given a state funeral.
Well, I shall have the champagne on ice on the day she dies, and don't care who knows it.

Lower than vermin. That's what Bevan said, and he is right to this day - pity the Labour party have forgotten that fact.

Bishop Gene Robinson

Since departing from the Church, I now look on as an outsider - but its good to see Gene standing up for equality and acceptance. I think he is brave, inspiring and, unlike the vast majority of other bishops, actually comes across well on the media!

And anyone who gets called a heretic by some loud-mouthed fundamentalist has to be doing something right!

The United Nations - what is the point?

There is nothing wrong with international co-operation, indeed, it has to be seen as a Good thing. But the latest little wheeze, where those sterlking democracies of Russia and China used their veto to prevent economic action being taken against Zimbabwe, displays to me that this organisation is toothless and quire possibly entirely redundant.

Mock-democratic oligarchies such as Russia and the Chinese dictatorship - soon to be given ample publicity by way of the Olympics (in which all who compete should be thoroughly ashamed) making decisions on behalf of the international community - not worth the paper they are written on, all told.

Barclays Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and the mining corporations Anglo American and Rio Tinto have decided to stay in Zimbabwe. Given the past actions of Barclays, the Apartheid bank, and RTZ, who can be in the least surprised?

Life can be a bit trying....

Apologies for having ignored the blog in recent weeks - combination of a lot of short-term contract work and a family crisis.....

But...some comments on the big issues

Women bishops: has to be a Good Thing. The conservative Anglo-Catholics don't like it, but then that is to be expected. many of them are closet gays who can't form decent relationships and, frankly, are more screwed up about relationships and sexuality than those outside the institution. They also can't cope with women, hence the creation of an exclusive little fairy ring within a homophobic institution for them to hide in and self-flagellate via casual sex they shouldn't be having according to what they are supposed to believe.
Let's make it clear. No excuse for gay priests in the closet pretending to be something they are not. None at all, ever, under any circumstances. It is hypocrisy. Come out, fight for change, and win respect for doing so.
And I do think a church with women bishops will be more open to change in the area of sexual orientation, largely because there won't be quite as much of that visceral 'yuk factor' which is at the heart of so many homophobes' fears.

The NHS: the 60th anniversary was celebrated at a time when the scourge of PFI has literally eaten up all the additional money ploughed into the system, and where NHS dentistry is likely to become a thing of the past in the next few years. I have recently agreed to join the local LINK, which is the half-baked new labour replacement for the PPI Forums. They weren't perfect but at least we were able to make some changes and representations. these Links are barely talking shops which appear to me to have no teeth and no clout - and they are likely to be full of organisational placepersons afraid of speaking out of line for fear of losing their grants....

The Labour party: continues to sink in the polls and deservedly so. I think there needs to be a major change of direction, but perhaps that will have to happen in opposition. I think that the Tories will have huge expectations placed upon them and given that their policies are either the same or argue that government can't do anything anyway, expect their honeymoon to be very short indeed.

Everton FC: Where are the signings, Moyesy? Why do we always leave it to the last minute?

More to come....back to work....

A further petition....

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Stopdeportinggay/

This is directed at the Prime Minister and looks at the more general issue of deporting gay and lesbian people back to repressive regimes where they face almost certain persecution and death

Prossy Kakooza must stay

Furing nthe surreal press conference for the fringe fundamentalists of the African-led 'churches', the usual suspects deniewd the existence of violence against gay and lesbian people in their countries.

This is the truth

Prossy Kakooza is a 26-year-old woman seeking asylum in the UK. She fled Uganda after suffering vicious sexual, physical and verbal attacks due to her sexual orientation.

Prossy had been forced into an engagement when her family discovered her relationship with the girlfriend she met at university, Leah. Both women were marched two miles naked to the police station, where they were locked up.

Prossy’s inmates subjected her to gross acts of humiliation. She was violently raped by police officers who taunted her with derogatory comments like ‘’we’ll show you what you’re missing’’ and ‘’you’re only this way because you haven’t met a real man’’. She was also scalded on her thighs with hot meat skewers.

Prossy was eventually taken out of prison after her father bribed the guards. Her family had decided they would sacrifice her instead, believing this would ‘’take the curse away from the family’’.

Whilst her family were making arrangements to slaughter her, Prossy managed to flee to the United Kingdom to seek asylum.

When Prossy went for treatment to her local GP’s surgery in the UK they were so shocked by the extent of her injuries they called the police.
She was taken to the St. Mary’s Centre in Manchester, and she is still receiving counselling there for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Prossy’s asylum application has been refused by the Home Office, who acknowledge she was brutally raped and burnt because of the medical evidence, but have dismissed these appalling attacks as ‘’the random actions of individuals’’, and state she can be returned to a different town in Uganda.

This judgement ignores the clear danger to gay people throughout the country where the penalty for homosexuality is life imprisonment.

Also, in Uganda, you cannot settle in a new town without a reference from your previous village, and on the basis she is a lesbian, Prossy would be subjected to similar persecution wherever she went.

We consider that if Prossy is sent back, she faces the continuing threat of incarceration, and further sickening attacks - which next time may be fatal.

Prossy is a highly educated woman who can be a productive member of society.

She has a right to be free with her sexuality, which is causing no harm to anyone, and she has a right not to be raped, attacked, or murdered.

YOU CAN HELP by signing this petition, writing to the UK Minister, Liam Byrne, and downloading, printing and displaying a poster

See http://www.mccmanchester.co.uk... for details

Watch Prossy tell her story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Sign the petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ProssyKakooza/

Oh, and according to our Home secretary, it is possible to be a 'discreet' gay or lesbian in Iran without being stoned to death. Is that discreet in never telling anyone or doing anything about it for fear of being ...stoned to death? Yes, that one! Got it.
And I thought Ruth Kelly was a right-wing harridan.....what planet are some of these 'Labour' MP's on?

Zimbabwe

If Zimbabwe had oil or was adjacent to Israel, how long ago would invasion have happened to support 'regime change'?

Both Burma and Zimbabwe have regimes which are worse that Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Yet still they continue in power.

In this case, the weakness of the so-called 'international community' can be seen only too clearly. But also, the pathetic response of Mbeki. It is simply not good enough to excuse a murdering lunatic simply because he was on the right side of an argument that was settled some years ago.

What is the problem with Africa's governance? Why does it appear that not a single country on that continent can govern itself adequately?

More religionist hypocrisy

With the current 'controversy' about the blessing after the civil partnership in London (of which there have been many, many before), it appears that once again, there is a little bit of dishonesty creeping into the proceedings.

It appears that these cowardly, spineless Bishops who supposedly support change but hide behind the lies of the collective voice might just have different views in private than in public

And that some of them may just have been involved in such blessings before.

And by all accounts, this includes the King of the Spineless Slugs itself, Rowan Williams.

If this is true, doesn't this make hin utterly beyond contempt. we already know he is pious, out of touch, a useless communicator, a worse administrator, and betrays and abandons his friends.

Now it seems that he is a hypocrite and a liar as well.

I can't think of anyone I despise more. How I would love the opportunity to tell him so, but he likes to hide behind the safety of never facing those who have worked him out a long while back.

Anyway, the latest little spat should show only too well why the Church as an institution is no place for gay people, and why the so-called 'ministries' which try to encourage gay people to suppress their sexuality for the cause of a failed and erroneous superstition are getting precisely nowhere.

Grow up, Shami

I've made it clear enough that I am not in favour of 42 days.

However, if Shami Chakrabati is really so naive as to believe that Davis isn't both an opportunist and a right-winger who just happens to have got it right on this issue, then she is naive and perhaps a closet Tory?

And as for suing Andy Burnham - don't be so utterly pathetic. Perhaps a little less eulogising of Davis might help, eh, Shami?? Or are we after a Tory seat?

Bush, Iraq and Afghanistan

How depressing to see our PM schmoozing up to Bush like a good little puppy-dog yesterday.

But quite how the current level of support for both Iraq and Afghanistan can realistically be sustained is something I think has not been faced.

Still, both situations were the outcome of past policy mistakes.

We should withdraw from Iraq and reduce involvement in Afghanistan.

Church and industrial tribunals

Once again, the Church has lost an industrial tribunal, and once again it is trying to brush away the findings. This one was so cut and dried that an immediate decision was made in the appellant's favour.

The findings included the following gems about the Bishop of Liverpool:
1. He doesn't like the city
2. He is more interested in national fame and his public image that what happens here. It is a standing joke here that if you want the Bishop to attend all you have to fo is let him knw that the BBC will be there - he is to microphones what dogs are to .....
3. He is known to be economical with the truth
4. He cares more about his personal 'credibility' than anything else and will sacrifice anyone else to maintain it
5. He desperately wanted to be Archbishop of York

All of those things emerged during the tribunal; there is no reason to believe they are not the case given the outcome. Of course, some will disagree.

My own impression is that the Bishop really ought to consider his position. He is not popular and not respected in Liverpool.

My own experience is that he, in my view, doctored a report which I was involved in producing and ensured that it made little impact. I used to meet him and liaise with him regarding gay issues when I was involved with the church. When I started to draw away, I know that he was aware of why - yet I heard nothing at all from him. This is his problem. As the appellant in this case noted: "There was no grace or mercy: no humanity". Wouldn't a pastorally concerned church leader have wanted to talk to me and find out why i felt so disillusioned?

The Bishop should accept that he is unpopular , not up to doing the job, and resign. On the other hand, maybe he shouldn't - because the Bishop, and the result of this, and the tribunal lost by the bishop of Hereford, epitomises what I have realised the Church is really all about. Which is why I left.

GO SUPERLAMBANANAS!

For those of you not accustomed, these are SUPERLAMBANANAS of which we have 119 appearing in the city to celebrate the Capital of Culture 2008, for the next 10 weeks. They will be auctioned off for charity at the end of the run.

Gay blessings, the CofE and the inevitable split

So, we have a public same sex blessing of a civil partnership in a church. The first, according to some news reports. Who are they trying to kid? Just goes to show that the level of sheer hypocrisy and lies within the Church knows no bounds.

Naturally, our dear homophobic friends at Anglican Extreme and StandFirminBigotry are having a frothing-at-the-mouth day. I do find it amusing how they play good cop/bad cop - so you have the angry, straightforward gay-haters, such as a character called 'Rooney' who hails from this fair city - probably attends one of the nuttier fringe churches. But then you have people like 'vicar' - every bit as prejudiced, but he does it 'nicely', no doubt as a way to get unsuspecting gays to enter his temple of bigotry. Fortunately we have more sense - warm words don't wash.

As for the blessing, I wish the happy couple all the best, and high time that clergy and parishes with courage started to speak out. I recall being offered blessings when we had our civil partnership, but didn't take up the offer - I wasn't really into being blessed by a homophobic institution and was outside the church to all intents and purposes by then in any case. But it is good to see the bigots being challenged and the homophobic nonsense that is 'traditional' Christianity being shown up for what it is.

Gay relationships are here to stay. the Church will have to get used to it - and I think this is one more welcome step towards the split which needs to happen, and soon.

more thoughts on civil liberties...

There does seem to be an issue which I think the by-election has to be used for. The problem with people like Akehurst is that they can turn around and bleat about popular opinion being on their side - and indeed, poll evidence suggests so, although it does depend what question is asked. I think libertarian-minded people on both left and right are already convinced.

I have my doubts as to whether the authoritarian wing of the Tory party actually believe what Davis says at all - they just wanted to have a pop at Labour, and that is their job as an opposition

What is clear is that there is still a large wedge of the population who are swallowing the autoritarian 'safety' lone on this one and that we need to explain exactly why it is nonsense - from both left and right wing libertarian perspectives.

Shami Chakravarti is doing a sterling job . She manages to relain above ideological fray whilst expressing clearly and succinctly what the problem is.

This is certainly making me think again about some issues which have bothered me less in the past. For example, I have been relaxed about ID cards, as I see them working in Europe witout problem. But can we trust a government which such authoritarian instincts not to misuse them?

Bizarre indeed...

We have the obnoxious Kelvin McKenzie, former Sun editor, offering himself as an anti-civil liberties candidate to challenge Davis. And this receiving support from some of the more fringe right-wing New Labour enthusiasts.

A progressive party just doesn't support locking people up without charge.

42 days, David Davis, and the death of the Labour party

The 42 days incarceration without trial got through with the backing of the DUP, for which some sort of dodgy deal was undoubtedly done. For me, this represents the death of the Labour party as a progressive force.

It is strange to see David Davis be the standard bearer of civil liberties. I have never thought of him as being the obvious trailblazer, but at least this will keep the issue in the news and will ensure that the arguments against this illiberal and undemocratic legislation do not go away.

It is simply unacceptable to lock people up without charge, and if the Government feel that there is any mileage in trying to win those over who will provide the necessary intelligence, they are going about it in the wrong way.

I do not think that a supposed obsession with safety excuses blatant ignoring of civil liberties.

Sent to me by the Terrence Higgins Trust

Urgent Action - Don't Deport Amdani Juma


Amdani Juma, a torture survivor, pro-democracy activist and Terrence Higgins Trust volunteer, was taken into detention by the Home Office seven days ago. Faced with imminent deportation to Burundi, a country where his activism has resulted in his appearing on wanted posters, Amdani needs your support to keep him in the UK.

Since his arrival in the UK, Amdani has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of people with HIV in Nottingham. As well as providing face to face support and mentoring to THT service users, he also started the first African women's support group in the city. His considerable abilities and rapport with the local community have made his health promotion work with Africans in Nottingham invaluable. In the words of his MP, Alan Simpson, "He is an outstanding asset. Removing him from the UK would leave Nottingham (and beyond) much the poorer. There is no one, particularly within the HIV field who could replace the work he does."

We are asking all our supporters to contact the Home Secretary to ask her to recognise Amdani as a political refugee and intervene to prevent his deportation. Please take a moment to send a quick message voicing your support to public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk. There is a sample letter below. Please quote his Home Office case reference number, A1179608, in your email.

You can also sign the associated petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/amdani/petition.html. Please also pass this message to your friends to help gather momentum for the campaign. We only have a matter of days to show our support and reverse the decision.



Sample letter:


Dear Mrs Smith,


I am writing on behalf of Amdani Juma, currently in detention and due to be deported, to ask that you intervene on his behalf. His Home Office case reference number is A1179608.

Mr. Juma is an asset to the UK and to health and social care in the city of Nottingham. As a volunteer case worker for Terrence Higgins Trust, he has given freely of his time, skills and energy to help people living with HIV. Amdani's hard work has led to the setting up of Nottingham's first support group for women living with HIV, and his considerable abilities and rapport with the local community have made his health promotion work with Africans in Nottingham invaluable. Mr. Juma is a key link for healthcare to a community acknowledged to be hard to reach but in great need of help.

We believe that Mr. Juma should be allowed to remain in the UK. He has more than proved his commitment to being a part of Nottingham's community, and that community would keenly feel his loss should he be deported. We ask that you intervene to allow him to stay and continue his important work.


Yours sincerely,


(Your name)

Anonymous comments

I don't publish them, so don't waste your time bothering.

If you have the honesty to say who you are and provide a link, fair play. But if you want to post the equivalent of a poison-pen letter on the web - well, you know what most people think of those who do that sort of thing!

And the amusing thing is that so far, all the anonymous comments have come from self-proclaimed Christians!

UPDATE

Since I posted this, I have received an anonynous comment, which asks me to reconsider. No, I won't be doing so. I am quite happy to print comments in opposition to my own (unlike some!), But they should be identified - I am simply not going to give space here for people to abuse the facility. With free speech comes responsibility, and whilst I am not asking for names or locations, I think that snide anonymous posts do no one any good.

Latest in terms of politics....

The government appear to stagger on from one day to the next. Yet I think much of what is going on has very little to do with them either positively or negatively - and is there anything in the ory programme that offers anything greatly different let alone a solution? With regard to fuel taxation, they have been all but silent - yet any reduction would certainly make a mockery of all that 'vote blue, go green' stuff we kept hearing so much of last year.

And on that topic, I find it impossible to feel an ounce of sympathy for the hauliers. Selfishness could be their middle name. More should be transported by rail in any case, but the arrogance of this band of petty-minded bullies knows no bounds. Any attempts at blockades - arrest them and confiscate their lorries, selling them at a cut price rate to Eastern European competitors if necessary. That should annoy them! They should have no special deal - although the time for road pricing really is well overdue.

The latest appears to be a report saying that recidivism with regard to youth crime is still as high as ever. Given that the strategy appears to be to use institutional punishment as the basis for dealing with the issues - universities of crime producing fitter criminals who learn lots of tricks whilst inside - who is in the least surprised? About time the Government abandoned populism and looked towards countries whose policies actually work - and prison isn't the centrepiece.

What I find hard to understand are those who think that we are still in 1996: who fail to realise that the new voters opting for labour in 97 never voted for them again. 2001 and 2005 were characterised by abstention, and many of those who didn't bother to vote were Tories who have now returned to the fold after a flutter with Labour in 97. Yet there are still those who think that all the government have to do is make lots more right wing noises and the voters will return.

I have my doubts as to whether the next election is retrievable - but as someone who did genuinely welcome New Labour in the late 90's, it appears obvious to me that new times need a different approach.
The biggest two groups of voters who Labour are pissing off at the moment are the core voters who feel utterly abandoned by a party which doesn't appear to be Labour any more. The second are middle-class professionals who are ideologically committed to the left-of-centre but are exasperated by a combination of target-driven lunacy in the public sector, and the government's insistence in progressing issues such as the 42 day limit for interviewing suspects. Those issues win no added votes - but lose many to the LD's and the Greens.
The Labour party should be ensuring that its policies are aimed at those two groups as a priority, not spending its time chasing after voters in the south-east who are certainly not coming back in time for the next election.

Eurovision - one week later....

Been neglecting the blog again - wish there were more resposes to what I write. I know people do read it, but few ever respond....

Anyway, Eurovision was last Saturday. I won't write a full song by song review, but some of my thoughts.

First, that the winner was deserved. It was a good song, well sung, and clearly Russia were going to win at some time. Why not this year?
However, the victory has brought forth the most unacceptable selection of anti-Eastern European bile I have seen for a while on some of the ESC fan websites. Hardly appropriate.

Second, the UK did badly, as usual. I thought it was a good song this year - but it wasn't particularly memorable and in a field of 25 and a televote it needs to be.

Third, none of the novelty entries did particularly well, and that can only be a good thing....

My faves: Russia, Portugal, Israel (excellent performance) and Poland. Norway, Bosnia and Georgia also very good.
Worst: didn't like Ukraine , Greece or Sweden, but performance wise, Germany was simply embarrassing. What is it about girl groups and the ESC? Why are they so inevitably unable to sing in harmony? Indeed, sing in unison!

Eurovision - two days to go

Its been quite a Eurovision week - with two semis, and a performance of Eurobeat to see in Manchester!

Most of my faves made it through to the final - Belgium didn't, which was always touch and go, nor Moldova, which was no surprise. The Swiss singer was very nervous tonight, and the only real surprise for me was Hungary not making it

Portugal were fantastic tonight and is my current fave, and I also rate Russia. Other good ones are Poland, Bosnia, Georgia, Norway, Israel, Romania, Serbia and the UK!

HF&E Bill

I was pleased to see that all the clauses in the Human fertilisation & Embryology Bill were passed, and that no change was made to the abortion regulations.

I find it bizarre that anyone would want to prevent research which may be able to take us further in combating appalling diseases, and to try and prevent parents from helping their existing children. The Tories proved that homophobia still runs all too deep in their party. There are some honourable exceptions, but on the whole, they are still the same old Tories.

As for abortion, again, the right decision was made, and the usual gore-fest tactics of Vatican plc and the anti-abortion movement failed to work. I really feel that the Church must understand that it has no right to force through its will and stop others from making their choices - for inevitably, that is what Christianity does and is - simply a method of controlling the lives of others. How I didn't see through this before I don't know - perhaps I heard what I wanted to hear.

Malcolm Bailey RIP

Had some sad news at the weekend - an old friend of mine from university days, Malcolm Bailey, died from a second brain tumour. He had battled against and defeated the first, but the arrival of the second seemed to be just too much.

We hadn't seen that much of each other in recent years with the geographical distance between us - always something one regrets afterwards. There's never much one can say under these circumstances. I hope that his widow Debbie and their children are coping.

Life certainly isn't very fair.

Abortion

With largely religionist MP's attempting to force vulnerable women to be banned from having very necessary terminations, this article from Zoe Williams in the Guardian is well worth reading. Remember that the aim of the anti-abortion movement is to ban all abortion - nearly all of them are conservative religionists and have an (im) moral attachment to banning abortion. The nonsense about reduction of weeks is a smokescreen as they then go on to talk about their definition of life, which includes a clump of cells in a petrie dish.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/07/gender.health

Cannabis

The Government have, unsurprisingly, jumped on the ludicrous 'classification' bandwagon in order to reclassify cannabis.

They appear quite unable to see that this entire approach has dome absolutely nothing to reduce the use of drugs. Will anyone currently using cannabis stop doing so because of reclassification - of course not.

I don't use cannabis or any other illegal drugs. However, what always appears to be absent from any government discourse on the topic is that people use them because they like them and because they regard them as fun.

We already have a dour, boring PM who comes over like some sort of semi-retired church minister. Now we have yet another piece of repressive legislation.

Expecting imagination from any government on this topic is far too optimistic - but until they realise that people who use drugs do not care about the scare stories and the 'danger' message will not work, we won't make any progress and the same old tired arguments will continue.

Celine Dion

... saw her in Manchester last night. Fantastic - what a show!

Local elections

I'm not currently a member of any political party, though I suppose associate myself still with Labour. But Thursday's results were not only predictable, but deserved. Not only has the government run out of steam, but they are doing some things which are just plain wrong.

It seems to me that the Tories will have to start actually talking in greater detail as to what they actually intend to do, though. The detail is threadbare at best at present.

As for Labour: well, these will naturally be ignored, but as they claim to be listening....

• Get rid of Brown, preferably via his humble resignation. Could anyone have disappointed more? I think he needs to face up to the fact that he is damaged goods. There is something....odd about him. On the Nicky Campbell show the other day, he was asked what he thinks about first thing in the morning. he launched into a complicated response about house prices. That's weird. Its not what people think about first thing in the morning.
• Reverse the 10p tax rate decision. Forget about the so-called measures to compensate. It needs to go.
• Accept the fact that 1997 was a fluke and 2001 was won because the Tories were a shower and utterly inept. This means that some seats won in those years were flukes and should not be aimed for again.
• Linked to this, what is needed is to motivate the basic Labour vote. Those voters who lent their votes to Labour only did so because the Tories were so awful. Now they are credible they have gone home. They will remain there at least for the next election. Forget about them. Instead, think about measures to re-invigorate two core voting blocs - the core labour vote feeling the pinch, and the middle class intellectual vote.
• For the former - do something about housing. That, above all, is the cause of distress in many areas, and causes most of the angst with regard to immigration. That means COUNCIL housing, and these should be public sector not open for the RTB. Secondly, reorganise the tax system - tax credits are a disaster. Instead, simplify by removing the low paid from tax altogether. And lets have a higher tax rate , please, for the best off.
• For the latter, get out of Iraq, and start distancing from the US expansionist nightmare. neo-con nonsense needs to go, forever. It has no place in a left-of-centre party. Secondly, abandon some of the authoritarian measures which are unnecessary. Third, stop trying to compete with the Tories to win White Van Man. This group is far more loyal to Labour, and they all vote religiously - and its those very policies that alienate this group, but fail to win over any converts.
• Finally, any party which has become so right wing that people like 'Business' Secretary John Hutton can be a member has problems. I have heard countless interviews and not once has he said anything which wouldn't be more appropriately said by a Tory.
  

More confusion on 'family values'

The Austrian case of multiple incest and domestic violence in a supposedly average family should offer warnings to anyone who tries to pretend that there is somehow something untouchable about 'the family'. Families, like most other institutions can be good and bad. Most murders and rapes happen within families. The obvious support given to the murderer of the young Goth woman in Bacup displays how families can be just as much part of the problem. It is the quality of living arrangements which matters -not the structure.

And remember the Catholic adoption agencies screeching about having to close all their adoption agencies because they would no longer be allowed to discriminate against gay people? In reality, none will close., What is happening instead is that the agencies - supported largely by the State, not Vatican plc despite its vast riches - are establishing themselves as independent agencies and they are signing up to the new regulations. because many of the well-trained social workers in their employ never wanted to discriminate in the first place, and will be able to provide a much better service outside the UK branch of Vatican plc. One really should question, given their record, whether the RC's are a suitable organisation to be involved in child care in any case. Thankfully, it appears their prejudices will help to make this branch of their 'work' history.

Inheritance laws and couple status

The ECHR ruled against a pair of sisters sharing a home who wanted the inheritance rules to apply to them in the same way as civil partnership or marriage today.

This was an entirely sensible decision. Essentially marriage and civil partnership contain the same rights and responsibilities. One can divorce one's partner in these circumstances. The same cannot be said for siblings.

There may well be questions about the fairness of the inheritance tax system - but they need to be dealt with and looked at entirely separately because they are simply not the same issue. The real aim of the Christian religionists who encouraged this case was to try and downgrade civil partnership and make it less like gay marriage. Unfortunately for them, it is gay marriage. Its just called something different. The template is the same. And that is the way it will stay, whether angry and reactionary peddlers of harmful religionism like it or not.

Richard Dawkins

We went to hear Richard Dawkins speak at the University this evening. Its amusing that such a convinced atheist has become such a High Priest of his own non-religious beliefs - but not surprising as he is articulate and funny.

And, on the whole, convincing.

Its been a long journey but I find myself having less and less in common with, and little attraction left to Christianity.

Government climbs down under backbench and public pressure

The Government appear to have climbed down with regard to measures to alleviate the effect of the 10p tax band abolition.

The devil will no doubt be in the detail, but wouldn't it have been refreshing for the Government to simply admit that they got it wrong?

And what of the bulk of Labour MP's who wouldn't sign Frank Field's amendment? Why, other than loathing of the Tory alternative, should we bother to vote for any of you? Cowards, the lot of them. Have they suddenly changed their mind or do they still agree that the abolition was a good idea?

Labour need to look very carefully at themselves and what they are doing.

Liverpool and family values....

Its interesting to see the conservative religionists such as Anglican Extreme jump on the bandwagon with regard to the Liverpool murder. The name of the perpetrator has been common knowledge for a while up here. I used to live about 2 minutes walk away from where Rhys Jones was killed. Its a pleasant estate, not run down or poor. That has at least been acknowledged.

However, the gang warfare on the neighbouring estates has been blamed on family breakdown. I think that some of these people ought to come up to Liverpool. Far from breaking down, these families are close knit, extended, even, as is always acknowledged by the death notices when one of them dies. There are fathers on the scene - much of the criminal knowledge is learned that way. Its all too easy to come out with the usual clichés about broken families - but family values are strong enough in Liverpool's estates. Its just that there are different types of families - and different types of values. The conservative religionists, in their eulogising of 'The Family' , fail to see that structure does not necessarily mean the sort of 'values' they promote.

In the news.,...

Sad to hear about the death of Gwyneth Dunwoody. I didn't agree with all she said, but she was one of the few politicians left who had a genuinely profound specialist knowledge - she would have made a fantastic Transport Secretary. Again, its easy to forget that she was always firmly on the Right of the party - yet New Labour has drifted so much over to the Right that she appeared to be a bit of a lefty.....sadly, we won't be seeing her like again, given that so few mavericks are likely to make their way through the selection procedures.

Mugabe has climbed on his British Paranoia platform again. A pity for all that Zimbabwe isn't sitting on some bubbling oil wells. However, it does underline the reality - that there is little that the UK can do in this situation when it is regarded as the old colonial oppressor. Anything that is said simply provides ammunition for Mugabe to rabble rouse.
The person most responsible for his survival is Thabo Mbeki. What a disaster he has proved to be. Could Zuma be worse?

Unpublished letter.....

Looks as if my local rag didn't have the courage to print this....

Dear Sir,

The progress made with regard to medical research has radically transformed the lives of many people, for example , beneficiaries of transplant surgery or IVF treatment.

Stem cell research offers the possibility of relief from debilitating conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Alzheimer's disease. It is early days, but at one time, the aforementioned technology was also in its infancy.

Imagine,then, if those possibilities had been snuffed out by the attempts of a minority religious group to impose their view upon others. Not only expecting those of the same religion not to partake in these benefits, but preventing others from doing the same.

This is exactly what is happening now. As ever, we hear threats from Catholic bishops, obscure backbench MP's passed over for promotion, and others whose aim appears to be to create some sort of theocracy.

It is vital that this important research goes ahead and that those who would believe that to prevent it is any sort of 'moral' stance be firmly defeated. And given that these people are either outside politics, in the case of Bishops, or elected to represent their party, not their church, can I suggest that they exercise their 'conscience' by starting their own Vaticanist party? That way, those of us who have strong disagreement with Catholic beliefs in these areas will know exactly who not to vote for at the next election.

Giving blood

There is a shortage of blood donors. Yet, still, gay men are arbitrarily stopped from giving blood. There doesn't seem to be any logical reason for this. All blood is sensitively screened, and it is clear that 'behaviour' is not actually the criteria as questions about sexual activity are not asked of heterosexuals - or gay men, for that matter.

The ban is being challenged in Scotland. I hope it is removed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7347108.stm

Missing children

No doubt the Shannon Matthews incident will be soon forgotten. But its all quite sad. I wonder how they thought they could get away with it in the first place - unfortunately, it may mean that there is automatic suspicion the next time a kid from a poor background goes missing.

The McCann saga still drags on. This will no doubt upset some people, so please don't read if you think they can do no wrong. Personally, I think its high time they left the public arena. Whatever way one looks at it, and whatever happened to the child, no-one knows other than whoever did it, there is no excuse for leaving three small children alone. A baby-minding service was available, and anyone who visits Spain and Portugal knows that kids go out with their families - there wouldn't have been any problem at all in taking them along.

Given that if the children were all left alone, that immediately suggests some culpability, does this mean that a high-profile public campaign led by the very same parents is appropriate? I don't think so.
It also seems odd that only one of the three children disappeared.

Government woes.....

All Governments run out of steam, but this one does appear to be doing so big style. There doesn't seem to be any sense of direction and whilst on one level, thats no surprise, there do appear to be some echoes of the desperation of the Major years.

The willingness of MP's to raise questions about policies which they accepted just before Brown's election is an example - the abolition of the 10% tax rate is an example. Overall, the change probably makes us better off as a couple. However, taking my earnings into account, that certainly wouldn't be the case. I think there is something seriously wrong with a tax system which is clearly acting as a disincentive for the low paid to work. Should people earning as litle as £12K really be paying tax at all? I don't think so.

Northern Spain

Spent a very pleasant time in the north of Spain. We took the car on the ferry from Plymouth to Santander, and spent time in the Basque Country, Asturias, and Galicia.

Its mountainous territory, green and fertile. Unfortunately, for the two days we were in San Sebastian, it rained torrentially both days, so much so that it was impossible to walk to the aquarium without being blown into the sea! We ended up driving out to the centre of the jesuits at Loyola, which was actually rather good - there was a computer-aided English commentary by an Irishman who did a very good job at suggesting we should all become Catholics in a very gentle way...

Went to two of the star restaurants , Arzak, and Mugaritz. both excellent. What we tended to find, though, is that you get what you pay for in much of the region. pricey food is exemplary, cheap lunches pretty ropey.

And on the last night, both of us ended up vomiting violently and we are still not entirely back to normal. Virus, the tap water, or food could all be possibilities. Still, at least it was the end of the holiday - and there was a comfortable Commodore cabin on the ferry to sleep in for 15 hours solid!

Overall, its worth a visit. Natural beauty in abundance, and great wine. be warned, though, the distances between places are longer than they may appear on the map. And don't miss out Oviedo - its a delightful town but very much off the tourist itenary.

and yet more...

Some other Scottish cardinal ranting on - but I am sure that their approach will be counter productive. people generally aren't too keen on minority religionists telling the rest of us what tio do.

They do a great job, though. Joanne Bogle, former Tory councillor and doyen of various far-right immoral causes over the years did her usual sterling work this evening on 5 live. Shrieking, interrupting, lecturing and hectoring - do these people ever listen to themselves? Anyway, all for the good - the worse their spokespersons, the more reasonable people will recognise the paucity of their flat earth beliefs.

More lunacy from a minion of vatican plc

I'm not sure what they put in the holy water these days, but it looks as if the flapping of white coats is once again to be heard amongst our dear friends at Vatican plc (Scottish branch)

The latest loon is one Joseph Devine, senior frock wearer of Motherwell, who has complained about gay people being represented at Holocaust remembrance services. Well - hel-lo - but actually the gay people were persecuted and killed by the Nazis. Now, what were the catholic church doing - ah yes, collaborating and making secret deals with Hitler, a baptised Catholic. And let us not forget Ratfinger's enthusiastic membership of the Hitler Youth. Leopards don't change their spots, do they?

He doesn't seem to have realised that the world has changed - and he has been left behind fulminating as gay people are treated equally before the law and his institution is rightly prevented from discriminating at the public expense.

The next step really must be to abolish religionists running schools. Seems they have been cooking the books to prevent nasty common children getting in and spoiling their exam figures. We should expect no less from such upstanding, honest people.

No surprise here....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/padre-pio-faked-his-stigmata-with-acid-397811.html

I wonder why anyone could ever think anything other.

Its obvious to anyone with even half a brain that this sort of thing is fake.

The Labour party

I was thinking the other day how it is all too easy to see things very differently from one place than another. The Labour party is one such thing. I think about rejoining, and then some bloody Government minister will come up with some utter tomfool nonsense about pledging allegiances to the Queen or such like ( this is NOT America and Brits find the reciting of poems to the flag hand on heart, as funny. Gordon, you don't seem to get it!)

It appears to me that an awful lot of decent mainstream Labour people have left the party. Iraq was a step too far for many of us, and as we are still there and direction doesn't appear to have changed, there isn't much to tempt us back to the fold.

What seems to remain are those who still seem to think that the battles of 1997 are being fought. No recognition that the Tories have certainly changed - it may be at surface level but change it is - and are no longer the incompetent unelectable mess of the last three elections. This group of NL evangelists are simply unable to be objective - they cannot or will not see that there are all sorts of areas where people really have had enough and have lost patience with the Government.

Then there is the hard left. naturally they spend most of their time fighting each other. The latest spat is over the choice of a new general Secretary for the Labour party. This is a functional not a policy making job. What is required is someone efficient with organisational ability. The purity of their politics is surely a secondary consideration. Already I have read blogs where such vitriol os expressed about the man simply because he works in the City! If he had been an arms dealer, fair enough - but what's wrong with drawing upon someone's experience?

he is undoubtedly taking a huge pay cut to do the job. he must be dedicated to the Party to want to do it in the first place.

So. Labour party members - a challenge - convince me that I should rejoin....

Catching-up time....

been busy again and have let this blog slip - so, some catching up.

First, Peter Tatchell has been mouthing off again about the age of consent. Sorry, peter, but no. Its fine at 16. of course some young people will have sex below that age but essentially the age does act as some sort of defence from predators - and they do exist, of all sexualities. What has to be remembered is that this is very much a lone voice. There is no campaign to reduce the age to 14. mainstream gay rights campaigners wanted equality, which is what we have, and have no desire to reduce the age further .

Did you hear last week's Moral Maze. There is something quite delicious about listening to that well known liberal (does she still call herself that?) Mel Phillips get angry. In this case, with a witness who was advocating prostitution. I didn't necessarily agree with him but the skill at winding up this quite humourless individual was masterful. Some people always rise to the bait.

Catholic MP's are once again trying to take orders from the Vatican to force the Governments hand. Quite simply, if your religionism is more important to you than supporting the Government, then start your own Vaticanist party. otherwise, belt up and stop trying to scupper urgently needed legislation which will hugely benefit people on the entirely spurious grounds of your make believe god and its disgusting, squalid, corrupt 'church'. There's nothing more immoral than Catholicism and its legions of hypocritical, fearful, brainwashed followers. particularly those skulking in their closets, scared of facing up publicly to their sexuality. there is just no excuse for it - its internalised homophobia through and through. One thing I agree with Peter Tatchell about is outing such hypocrites. They deserve to be shamed for their betrayal. I trust that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will resist the threats of the religionists and will ensure that we remain a centre for this vital research, and that children of lesbian parents are recognised as such - as equality law demands.

oh, and that the Pope should die soon of an agonising death - no more than the bastard deserves given the number that his church policies have murdered by its attitude to the use of condoms to prevent HIV.

Doublethink

I've been fascinated to listen to the doublethink of many commentating on religious affairs this week.

First, those who actually agree with the ABC in wanting religious space, but wishing that to be 1) either universally imposed on everyone irrespective of their personal beliefs, or 2) selectively applied meaning that only their religions count. This is the conservative Christians position, and also that espoused by conservative commentators like Mad Mel Phillips. So, we ignore laws we don;t like (such as gay equality) and fulminate against it because it offends our religious sensibilities, but Islam is a wicked and evil religion and so should not be given space within the law, unlike us, because we are nice and British and they are evil and foreign and all terrorists wanting to turn this country into Londonistan writ large.....you know the rest....

Its an utterly illogical argument. It relies on a view that we first accept the essential goodness of conservative religiosity for some religions and not others - even though their social views are all much the same!

The other doublethink is the way that conservative Christians use the 'Christendom' view when it suits them but rejects it when it doesn't.

So, if they wish to convert others to their religion, the vast majority of us are evil sinners outside God's grace, heading to hell in a hand basket. But when they want to argue for theior views to hold sway in civil society, then we are a Christian country and 72% of us said so in the last census, don't cha know....

So, which is it to be - because the two positions are incompatible. Recent research has shown very clearly that very few of that 72% believe much more than Christianity is about being nice to people and synonymous with being English. So, why shopukd they expect their view to dominate in the making of civil law?

More fall out from RW

The positive outcome of all this is that Williams' aim of trying to advocate different laws for the religious has fallen flat on its face. people clearly feel there should be one law for all and that law should not be overly influenced by religion.

We are effectively a secular country. For most people religion means little more than a vague belief in 'something more' and somewhere to get married or buried, though less and less so all the time.

We don't like extreme religion and think it should stay in the private sphere for those who wish to believe it.

And RW has ensured no more religionist opt-outs and the slow death of those that remain - for that we should thank him.

Conservative religionists are livid because it has displayed how very far they are from achieving their Christian conservative theocracy.

I think it is entirely wrong to try and enforce religious or any other values therough the back door - we should be aiming for plurality and choice.

But it has also showed how little people and particularly the Press bother to read what people actually say unless it is in simple soundbites.

Sharia Law?

So, Rowan the Spineless has really put the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons

What I think he seems to be saying is far less radical then the headlines will no doubt say (though this is RW so he might be saying something quite different)

I think he is starting from the position that he wants to preserve some space for religious thinking alongside the secular law, which means that there may be areas where religious attitudes or regulations can run alongside the secular law. The exemptions from the SOR's given to the church would be an example of that.

I think RW is suggesting that there may be areas where Sharia law can be respected and seen as acceptable alongside secular law - for example, with regard to some areas of family law within Muslim communities, perhaps on the lines of the acceptability of the Beth Din which has control of some aspects of family law within the orthodox Jewish community ( and is respected by the state)

I think, though, that his agenda is to try and preserve a religious space given the logic of a multi-faith society is increasing secularism as no religion is given preference. i think he is worried that unless this space is given for sharia, then Christians' privileges may be lost.

My own view is that the civil law should be secular, and that means no exemptions for anyone, but I think it likely that churches and mosques alike are likely to practice that which they believe in within their own walls, which is what freedom of religion means. But if some Christians wish to see Christianity receive a privileged place, then there will also be Muslims asking for the same and in a pluralist society there is no logic in refusing. So - one law for all, no exemptions for religion. And no superior place for a church which the vast majority of citizens have no interest in attending.

Busy, busy....but some passing thoughts on Bishop James Jones

Merseymike's world appears to consist largely of marking exam scripts....

But, a couple of thoughts. Bishop James Jones of Liverpool has published an essay in which he offers apology to Jeffrey John for the way in which he opposed his being chosen as Bishop of reading. The essay also looks more widely at the issues surrounding biblical notions of same-sex friendship and the attitude of the Anglican church.
I wasn't surprised to read the article (its at http://www.liverpool.anglican.org/people/bishops/jamesspeeches/0712_Lambeth_essay.htm if you want to read it for yourself).

I think that there has been some hyperbole from both sides of the argument. Conservatives appear to be either keen to portray Bishop James as having abandoned their position, or wish to minimise the step he has taken in revising his perceived position. Liberals and the report in the Guardian are over-egging the pudding in the other direction.

I think that the situation and the views of JJ are more nuanced. I haven't met him for a while since I ceased active involvement with Changing Attitude, and then the Church, but I have met him on a number of occasions, and it is no secret that I served on the Theology of Friendship Group which he refers to in the article. I think the following observations are fair.

First, that his position has certainly softened in terms of what he thought and said when I first had contact with him
Second, that I think he is carefully saying what he can find in the Biblical account without necessarily imputing that which cannot be fairly imputed, given the reality of social construction. David and Jonathan loved one another and they may have had sexual contact - but that doesn't make them 'gay' in a Western sense. No-one in the Bible can have that label simply because it is a term with all sorts of social and cultural meanings.
Third, i think he may still have issues around same-sex sexual expression but that he isn't willing to see this being a matter which brings division
Fourth, that he clearly thinks that the Windsor process os flawed because it suggests that there may be a 'conclusion' reached. This, I think, is his most profound shift. I know that he doesn't regard the issue as first-order, which does separate him from conservative evangelicals. But I think - and I may be wrong - that he is saying that he is now more able to live with difference and diversity and that this is necessary to keep the issue open and allow continued dialogue. Unless he was open to the possibility of embracing change, then he wouldn't be suggesting this as a way forward. That doesn't mean that he necessarily fully embraces it himself, though.
Not yet, anyway. But he has moved.

Hypocrite Watch; Closet gay Bishop #1

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=50017 is a letter to the Church Times written by closet gay Bishop Lindsay Urwin

As a gay man, he is nonetheless using his position to oppress other gay people.

He is a hypocrite and is suffering from internalised homophobia.

He thus deserves to be outed

Organ donation

Organ donation is an area of medicine which has greatly expanded in recent years. Despite the attempt to publicise organ donation cards, still many organs are lost simply because there is no knowledge of whether the person consents to donation or not.

I strongly and passionately support the proposed change which will ensure that organs can be used unless the individual opts out of donation. No doubt the usual religionist cries will be heard (and they are supposed to be 'pro-life'...don't make me laugh) but they have a simple remedy - be selfish and opt out if it offends their delicate little religionist sensibilities.

For those not encumbered by delusion, this is an opportunity to really make a difference and to give people genuine quality of life. I hope it is passed by parliament as soon as possible.

Capital of Culture 2008

Well, it came as something of a surprise to find on the doormat this morning, two free tickets to Liverpool - The Musical, at the new Echo Arena. I applied for them weeks ago and assumed that they weren't to be forthcoming...anyway, we felt that missing a unique event like this would be daft, so we ended up spending the evening there, despite my bad back and David's minor operation yesterday...

It was good fun. The stadium is impressive. the seats are comfortable and large, the views are excellent, and the sound quality good too.

Capital of Culture gets off to a good start.

Repeal SOCPA

Just been drawn attention to the Government consultation on the repeal of SOCPA - The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005

The deadline for responses and some useful information can be found on the website calling for its repeal.

http://www.repeal-socpa.info/

Nuclear Power

When Gordon Brown became leader of the Labour party, I thought about re-joining. I hoped that some of the excesses of the Blair years would be in the past - and, indeed, I am pleased to see that faith school expansion has been placed on the back burner, and that there seems to be a distancing from the US government's foreign policy

But the announcement that nuclear power stations have been recommissioned is something which makes it far less likely that i could vote Labour next time, let alone rejoin the party. The links between nuclear weaponry and power are obvious - we recognise that to be the case with Iran. The question of nuclear waste is something which no-one has an answer to. And how about active development of clean coal technology and alternative energy sources - all put on the backburner in the name of the military-industrial complex?

I recall a t-shirt with a slogan which read:
The earth is flat, pigs can fly, and nuclear power is safe.
Nothing has changed.

Bloody Chickens

This week, we have been treated to a barrage of propaganda about chicken welfare by Channel 4.

Now, I usually buy free range. Simply because it tastes better.

But I am all too aware that many people aren't in the financial position to be able to afford free range - which is something in the region of three or four times the price.

So, the unedifying sight of posh boy Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall (clearly of council tenant origin) lecturing single mums as to why they should buy free range - what planet does this bloke live on? Same with the future Lord Oliver. He is a multi-millionaire - its easy for him to advocate free range.

When it comes down to it, cheap food for people is more important than chicken welfare.

So, other developments

The world of politics and religion has proved interesting.

I suppose i should comment on Mr. Tony's joining Vatican plc. No surprise and given that his family are members, quite logical. Amusing to see the conservative catholics get so angry. They always hated him anyway and the fact that he has been welcomed without an insistence that he publicly denounces all he did in Parliament which they didn't like amuses. I wouldn't touch Rome with a barge pole but its his business, no-one else's.

As for Michael Nazi-Rally, bigoted homophobe and Roman Catholic son of a convert who manages to be an Anglican Bishop too, he is clearly positioning himself to be the British head of the breakaway conservative Anglican communion, gaining publicity by some well placed alarmism about Islam which he loathes with the typical zeal of the convert - even though he shares much more with their ideas than he would with me. Almost a mirror image - he also appears to think it is the job of Government to promote Christianity! Now, it is clear enough that without immigrants, church attendance would be lower still than it is now, but he cannot expect a secular democratic state to make his religion look attractive when he so clearly fails to do it himself every time he opens his mouth.

The US elections: Barack Obama's success is an encouragement - I hope he goes on and wins the Democratic nomination.

In Las Vegas, with the neon lights....

Well, where can one start? Its quite a place. Unique, in fact, and whilst I don't think we will be regular visitors, its certainly a lot of fun. Its quite the most profoundly extravagant and over-the-top place I have ever visited. Where else has a fake Venice, a fake Eiffel Tower, a fake Pyramid - its all quite hilarious. And fake, but in such an in your face way that you can't help but smile.

Highlights of the trip. The food. Its excellent, and the exchange rate meant that we could do some fine dining at reasonable cost. The days we spent exploring the valley of Fire National Park, and the Red Rock canyon, both of which are curiously beautiful, albeit in a bleak, lunar way. Barry Manilow, who we went to see at the Hilton - a great self-deprecator, acknowledging that he has left the world with songs murdered nightly in karaoke bars everywhere. And the show Le Reve, which was stunning - imagine 18 Dermot O'Leary lookalikes in swimming trunks for a start (Gary Mac, if you are reading this, put it down - now!)

We travelled cattle class with BMI. Not ideal. They have a system where you can request seats and then they go ahaead and totally ignore your requests. Its a bit like a longhaul version of Easy jet - not even a free gin and tonic.

We also managed to spend opur time there without gambling at all - is that a record.....

Try it for yourself.

just to say hello....

Back from Las Vegas a couple of days ago. Will be fully updating the blog in due course.....watch this space.

Dangerous cults?

I don't know if anyone caught the Jeremy kyle TV programme which looked at religious cults, focusing particularly on the 'Jesus Christians'.

On a personal level, I have no time for any of these organisations, which appear to be largely led by authoritarian personalities, attracting those who feel the need to follow.

The problem is that many of the so-called anti-cult organisations have their own, inevitably evangelical Christian, agenda.
They are not interested in the real problems of mind-control and authoritarianism, for if so, they would give up their own religion. What really counts as a 'cult'? Seems to me it should be about the way they treat people, not whether they have any kooky beliefs (which could be aimed at any set of beliefs)

I would, this, have great suspicions about anti-cult groups who do not start from a neutral position but believe that the main problem with cults is not the way they operate, but what they believe. I would certainly question people like Graham Baldwin, who appears to start from the position of being 'a Christian'. That makes his entire operation suspect. He merely wants to replace one set of beliefs with another. Which one is the 'cult'? Both propagate supernaturalist fairy-tales which cannot be verified. The question is what methods do they use and how much harm they do.

I would suggest that the anti-contraception position of Vatican plc and the homophobia of evangelifundamentalists does far more harm in terms of actual amount of damage done.

The original cult-busters were not operating from a religionist perspective. Their concern was the activity of particular groups. I remain to be convinced that this is so with regard to those operating from their belief that their sort of cult's beliefs are true, and others not so.

More from the Bigot of the Year

Some people really have no shame....

Elected Bigot of the Year, Bishop of Hereford Anthony Priddis, is now whining about how hurt he feels about being called a bigot and having 'derogatory' remarks made about him.

Easy answer to that, matey.

1. Admit you are wrong, that you broke the law, and that you would not to the same again
2. Offer penitence for your homophobia and join LGCM or Changing Attitude
3. Recognise that it is your beliefs which are unacceptable - they have the same moral status as racism and thus it is quite reasonable to address you in that light.

You know, the sight of Christians playing the victim is just risible. These people have a bloody state religion to play with yet still they whine because their particular brand of premodernism isn;t seen as appropriate to run a contemporary country. There is a victim in this instance - John Reaney.

Not you, Priddis. You are the bigot and tormentor who broke the law. You should feel ashamed, and any hurt you feel is simply your unrecognised guilt.

Remember that next time you partake in your sacramental activities. How about a bit of confessing?

Money, money, money....

The scandals about party funding appear to have died down somewhat, but I certainly don't expect them to be over by any means.
It seems to me that there has to be some sort of lasting and workable solution. This means, in my view, that we need to reach a situation where parties do not need to expend so much effort raising money. That means a downsizing: spend less money and there won't be the need to raise so much.

Of course, both parties really don't want this, and its interesting to see both the union funding and the money of rich individuals justified on a number of politico blogs. It appears to me that we need to move to a situation where the need to raise such large sums is no longer necessary. I have yet to hear a good case against this.

Vatican plc bigots strike again

This time on Five Live's phone-in, where a particularly nasty and intemperate version of Bigotus Catholicus made an appearance last night.

What is really good is that he made a fool of himself and in dispersing with the warm words, showed his true colours.

What I really want to know is why reasonable people - particularly gay people - have any truck at all with this thoroughly evil and corrupt institution. In my view its about self-hatred - not properly coming out, not having open relationships and so on. Its somewhere for the fearful to hide, even though if the truth were known, they would be unable to partake in the central sacrament of that church. For me, living in such a hypocritical state simply isn't acceptable. Living a lie cannot be a positive way to live one's life. That doesn't mean any sort of expectation of very visible 'outness', but the fact is that the RC church doesn't offer being gay and in a relationship as an acceptable option - thus, there must be a level of self-hate in wanting to be part of such an organisation.

In any case, the Christian myths look ever more ridiculous to me. There are some of the key messages which are worthwhile, but they can be found in other philosophies without the need for the supernaturalist mumbo-jumbo. Jesus was a premodern Jewish mystic and radical who along with many others, was killed by the authorities, and a cult of worship linked up with stories about coming alive again, virgin births and so on, developed around him, spread by his followers.

Still, they can believe what they want. But when they spread their homophobic poison, they absolutely must be opposed. Fortunately, they regularly do the job for us.

Come on Amazon, get some copies in....

Well, the book has made it to Amazon's hallowed listings, though they don't seem to have any in stock at present

Freedom of speech, teddybears and fascists

It was refreshing to see Caroline Flint's straightforward and honest performance on tonights Question Time. More politicians like her, please.

Freedom of speech is back on the agenda. We had the infamous debate at the Oxford Hooray Henry's Glee Club. I think it had precisely nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with publicity seeking tossers. Neither Irving nor Griffin are prevented from expressing their vile views within the law. But to invite them to do so - no.

As for Sudan. It goes without saying that I sympathise with Ms. Gibbons, and disagree with the Sudanese government. This is largely about political points being made by a government in a strop with the West, and Ms. Gibbons has been caught up in the mess. I do think, though, that it makes sense to be cautious whilst she remains in custody. I am also surprised that she seemed so naive as to what Sudan was actually like - surely someone from the school must have explained? I do think that one needs to be aware of the risks of working in countries with these sort of regimes.

When she is released, all aid should be automatically stopped until they are prepared to change. I would do the same for nearly all foreign aid, unless the country is prepared to sign up to secular democratic values. If they won't, then we will keep our money, and they can go stuff themselves. The third world lobby will whine as per usual, but if there's one issue I lean to the right on, then that's it. Why support a bunch of pre-modern homophobic religionists of either Christian or Muslim variety? The most civilised and progressive countries are both liberal and secular, and religion is kept in its proper place - for private piety, not public governance. The answer, though, is not to march in with troops in the hope that somehow one will be viewed as some sort of saviour - particularly when your own government has so many shortcomings.