Barmy nut-job Christians rise again

You just couldn't make it up

FINDLAY, Ohio – A student at a fundamentalist Baptist school that forbids dancing, rock music, hand-holding and kissing will be suspended if he takes his girlfriend to her public high school prom, his principal said.

Despite the warning, 17-year-old Tyler Frost, who has never been to a dance before, said he plans to attend Findlay High School's prom Saturday.

Frost, a senior at Heritage Christian School in northwest Ohio, agreed to the school's rules when he signed a statement of cooperation at the beginning of the year, principal Tim England said.

The teen, who is scheduled to receive his diploma May 24, would be suspended from classes and receive an "incomplete" on remaining assignments, England said. Frost also would not be permitted to attend graduation but would get a diploma once he completes final exams. If Frost is involved with alcohol or sex at the prom, he will be expelled, England said.

Frost's stepfather Stephan Johnson said the school's rules should not apply outside the classroom.

"He deserves to wear that cap and gown," Johnson said.

Frost said he thought he had handled the situation properly. Findlay requires students from other schools attending the prom to get a signature from their principal, which Frost did.

"I expected a short lecture about making the right decisions and not doing something stupid," Frost said. "I thought I would get his signature and that would be the end."

England acknowledged signing the form but warned Frost there would be consequences if he attended the dance. England then took the issue to a school committee made up of church members, who decided to threaten Frost with suspension.

"In life, we constantly make decisions whether we are going to please self or please God. (Frost) chose one path, and the school committee chose the other," England said.

The handbook for the 84-student Christian school says rock music "is part of the counterculture which seeks to implant seeds of rebellion in young people's hearts and minds."

England said Frost's family should not be surprised by the school's position.

"For the parents to claim any injustice regarding this issue is at best forgetful and at worst disingenuous," he said. "It is our hope that the student and his parents will abide by the policies they have already agreed to."

The principal at Findlay High School, whose graduates include Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, said he respects, but does not agree with, Heritage Christian School's view of prom.

"I don't see (dancing and rock music) as immoral acts," Craig Kupferberg said.

___

Information from: The Courier, http://www.thecourier.com

Politicians and priorities

The British public sometimes give the impression of being less than bright. And hypocritical.
Its well known that tax avoidance is rife. As is taking a sickie.
Yet when it comes to MP's we have all the current hysteria. Not that I agree with false claims, but the only sensible solution - a higher salary to enable two homes to be maintained - wouldn;t win public support either.

I find it sad and am not in the least surprised that so much interest is created in something so ultimately unimportant, leaving key issues by the wayside.

As for the 'holier than thou' stance of London Tory (sorry, she's supposedly Labour)MP Kate Hoey, its a bit easier when you are single and have a central London seat

This years pre-ESC review

Montenegro – Very 80’s throwback, its one of those songs which sounds OK on first listen but there really isn’t much to it, and it soon palls. Average at best

Czech Republic – This years Borat out-take. Pretty horrible all told. The shouty rapping definitely doesn’t work and this will be near the bottom of the pile

Belgium – Well, the Copycat name is obvious enough, although this is rather more Alvin Stardust than Elvis Pressup. Having the two novelty-ish entries at the beginning may not do them a lot of good. This is what you expect it to be.

Belarus – Very loud intro. Substandard stadium rock, and I don’t like the singing

Sweden – This years popera effort. I think its essentially a schlager song with an overblown opera chorus and it just screams ‘Swedish eurovision entry’. Which is fine if that’s your thing, but this isn’t mine....

Armenia – And the dross goes on.....this is one of those ‘ethnic but contemporary’ efforts which doesn’t go anywhere very much and isn’t particularly remarkable whilst dping so. It also requires a tune.

Andorra – I don’t rate this very highly, it’s an average pop song, But after the preceding bilge, it doesn’t sound too bad. Entirely forgettable, nonetheless

Switzerland – I have a reputation for not being a rock fan, but whatever category one places this in, it should sail through if there’s any justice. Musically its spot-on, interesting instrumentation, and the overall feel is somewhere between the Pet Shop Boys and New Order. Actually reminds me of ‘Disappointed’. What it has going for it is a good melody and a haunting atmosphere..

Turkey – So, so predictable. Unfortunately, there are always votes for this sort of thing, no matter how dull and unremarkable. You couldn’t get much more routine than this one. Ethnic kebab-shop-by-numbers. Boring, boring

Israel – Good singers who sound professional and harmonious. I don’t think it’s a great song, but after all the noise so far it comes over as quite different and refreshing

Bulgaria – This is straight out of the Communards/Jimi Somerville songbook, but to be able to get away with this sort of thing, you have to be able to do it very well. Sung well, this could win. But all the live performances so far have been excruciating

Iceland – This is a sweet little ballad, nicely sung, but somehow it misses something. I’m not sure what.

Macedonia – Even louder than Belarus. More stadium rock, and I’m not the person to be able to give an unbiased view....not for me

Romania – Another very dull song which doesn’t really do anything or get anywhere. Dullsville

Finland – very, very bad rapping, and usually rapping does badly in the contest. The chorus is pretty predictable Steps-style pop. No thanks

Portugal – And so to the class. This is delightful, it’s uplifting and cute. If Urban Trad can do well, why not this?

Malta – I’m a great Chiara fan and she can certainly sell a song. This isn’t as strong a song as either of the previous entries. But the chorus is very memorable. I think it will qualify and may do much better than some predict

Bosnia – This is a serious contender. It’s a dramatic song, well sung, I don’t like it as much on a few listens as the first time round but it will be a definite qualifier

Croatia – This year’s slice of Balkan doom. Its not one of the best examples, but he looks good and it may be remembered enough to qualify.

Ireland – I’d hoped for a really good Irish en try this year, but they really have lost the plot. This is a very weak Americanised song which classes as their worst effort to date

Latvia – In the ‘Bizarre’ corner comes this messy and tuneless cacophony. He’s a good singer, but this isn’t a good vehicle for a voice with lots of range

Serbia – There seems to be a surfeit of music claiming to be ‘folk’. This is the second Borat outtake only they have borrowed the lead singer of Right said Fred, fattened him up , and given him a wig. Its silly but then its meant to be. I think,

Poland – The response to this has been quite underwhelming so far, but I think it’s a good ballad – certainly much better than Iceland. Good melody, well sung on CD though I gather the live performances lack something. But it’s one of my favourites

Norway – Every so often, rationality disappears and something turns up which you love – or in this case, hate, hate , hate. Its not only that the song is a clichéd, derivative, irritant, nor that he has a face just waiting to be punched. Nor that something so cynically pitching for eastern votes is supposedly ‘traditional’. Its everything wrong with European pop in three loathsome minutes.

Cyprus – The performance in both the semi and final was in the Sophie Carle ‘little-girl-lost-with-out-of-key-voice’, which to an extent works, but not the out of tune bit. Song-wise this is really nice but whether such a huge improvement will be possible before the contest, I’m not sure.

Slovakia – Dramatic stuff, this. May all depend on the performance, but this sort of thing can do better than early predictions suggest – Tell Me Why being the obvious example. It isn’t the most tuneful song around, but it does stand out.

Denmark – What a cute boy! This is the sort of thing Ireland ought to be entering – and yes, it does sound like Ronan Keating. A million times better than Norway, it’s a grower, but can he do the song justice, particularly those high notes. If so, it’s a contender.

Slovenia – This must be the surprise selection of the year. It’s quite creative stuff but there’s just something a bit daft about watching what is effectively an instrumental being mimed on stage. I think it might qualify

Hungary – This is a bit gay. Actually, it’s very gay. But it’s not very good. Really predictable . It does what it says on the tin but this is one for recycling

Azerbaijan – Of the songs in this vein, this one is the strongest. I don’t actually like it, but it sounds fresher than the others and the voices work well.

Greece- The absolutely heterosexual Mr. Rouvas returns. He’s not much of a singer but then this doesn’t require a lot of singing. He’s fit and he can move, and like Chiara, he can sell a song. There’s a certain charisma there. Shake It sounds just great speeding to Athens airport in the back of a Greek taxi and this may do as well but it really doesn’t do much for me

Lithuania- This years ‘quiet song’ is pleasant enough but I think it needs a ‘lift’ melodically. It lacks light and shade.

Moldova- This year’s ultra-ethnic outing. I loved the jazz ballad last year but knew it wouldn’t get many votes. This really does sound like something you would stagger around drunkenly to but i have a feeling it could amass a few votes.

Albania- This sounds very Scandinavian to me. It’s nice enough but a bit unremarkable

Ukraine- There had to be one. Musical merit nil, heavy on the gimmicks. Tuneless and clichéd. Just horrible

Estonia – On first hearing I thought this was a bit ‘cold’, but it’s now one of my favourites. Haunting and ethereal, and a bit different....

Netherlands- Sometimes a joke entry works, but its important that everyone is in on the joke. To an outsider, this looks like three old blokes dressed as Liberace singing a schlager show tune

France- This is really classy, sleazy, jazzy stuff. It does stand out from the crowd – I can imagine it behind the credits on a film noir. Its also thoroughly French. Excellent

Spain- They do seem to have got into a rut of entering very predictable upbeat songs which scream ‘Spanish Eurovision entry’. This is another in the sequence, and its utterly forgettable

Germany- Conversely, Germany often enter interesting songs but they don’t always do well. This is very smooth and professional, I fancy the singer, and it’s a grower. But somehow I don’t think it is going to do very well. I hope I’m wrong.

UK- I’m not a fan of our entries on the whole, and actually having the UK on or near the top of the pile at this stage in the contest is almost unheard of. But this is the best ballad in the contest. It’s a memorable tune, and the ALW factor may help it along

Russia – Playing to the home crowd gallery I think. I don’t like it

Anyone else find our current political choices depressing?

We have a Labour government which is tired and has run out of steam. Considering the size of their majority, they could have done so much to enforce real change - but they actually didn't want to. Some good things, yes, but on the whole, disappointing. I'm not amongst those who criticise Brown for not being a charismatic leader. Vision seems to matter little when it comes to actually making real change, and messianic zeal can be somewhat concerning.

The Liberal Democrats appear to be all things to all people. But I can't work out what they really stand for. They appear to be travelling down the same neo-liberal path as the current government and the official opposition. They appear to have trimmed their pro-EU stance. Clegg makes my flesh creep. All in all, I can't really distinguish them a lot from moderate Tories. And I have no interest in voting for moderate Tories.

Which is why for me, no conservative party will ever be a choice I will opt for, because I am not conservative.

So, three main parties, none of who have anything very much to offer. Anyone here from any other party willing to sell me a reason for voting for them?

The right to commit suicide and treating adults as infants

http://www.exitinternational.net/

This is the website of Exit International, a pro-euthanasia society founded by Dr Philip Nitschke, who the Home office attempted to prevent from entering the UK.

Ludicrous. People should be treated as adults and there is nothing illegal about committing suicide. Nitschke appears to have worried the nannies because they wish to prevent people from making up their own minds. It really is about time that people stopped being protected from themselves. It is also the fact that once again, it is religionists who are trying to enforce their will upon others. Just like they try and make us live out our dying days in their revolting hospices, utterly unable to remove suffering without huge doses of morphine - I would never want to go into any of those vile places, filled with simpering religiosity and utterly immoral in their view that life is 'sacred' and people unable to make up their own minds.

What are these people so scraed of? Why do they wish to continue to infantilise the whole of life? Treat people as grown ups and let them have the choice - and if they make the decision you don't like - tough. Its not yours to make.

Oppose the self-hatred lie-peddlers

Something which deserves publicity - I can't make it but all power to those who can. The self-hatred movement needs to be exposed - all these people need to give up is their religion!

Protest/Demonstration:
Against Conference on Treatment to Eliminate Homosexuality in Gay Men & Women

Saturday 25 April 2009
13:00 - 15:00
at "The Emmanuel Centre", 9-23 Marsham Street, London, UK.

For further details of this protest see:
facebook.com/event.php?eid=71287658602

For background see:
pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-12074.html#
pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-12110.html#
guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2004/apr/03/weekend.deccaaitkenhead

Joseph Nicolosi, the main speaker at the above Conference, claims that academic research has verified that his "Reparative Therapy" works and works well, but it has since been found that the "academic research" was flawed: people whose homosexuality was treated were simply approached and asked if the therapy had worked, yes or no. Of course, the vast majority of the self-hating gay men and women who had put themselves under Nicolosi's therapy simply said "Yes" to their interviewer . . . but many have subsequently been found continuing to exercise their true gay or lesbian identities on the quiet. However, devout Catholic fundamentalist Joseph Nicolosi and his associates continue to ply their trade, "Reparative Therapy". They are charlatans and frauds.

50p top tax rate in the budget

The only question is - why the hell this wasn't done before, and why the proceeds could not have been used to ensure a stronger manufacturing base and a stop to privatisation.

New Labour have squandered their opportunities. This is the right move, but done for the wrong reasons.

If only there was a reasonable social democratic alternative. I think the Tories would be worse, and Nick Clegg is a Tory, through and through. No alternatives there.

A trip to the States

The Deep South no less, that land of many syllables and very loony right-wing views. Perhaps less so in the cities, but out in the boondocks - well....

Its interesting to see just how livid the right wing are. Rage, rage and more rage. And they just don't get that they lost the election, and think the reason they did so was that they weren't conservative enough. Bizarre. Fox News appears to be even more right wing than ever, MSNBC more liberal - watch the two stations report on the same event, it could be about two entirely different things.

We visited Atlanta, Charleston and Savannah, doing all the 'Midnight in the garden....' stuff in the latter. Savannah is certainly a stunningly beautiful place, very relaxed and Southern. Southern hospitality is certainly apparent everywhere we went, almost exaggeratedly so - at times I longed for some sharp New York backchat. We went out to North Georgia on one of the days and entered a shop to try and find out where the local potters shop was. We were met by three people who looked like extras from the Beverly Hillbillies. They stared at us as if we had landed from another planet - we could imagine them saying, after we left 'well, they weren't from these parts.....'. 80% in those areas voted Republican.

Saw some great music in Atlanta - saxophonist Boney James. I do like the US narrow-cast radio policy where the stations focus on one style of music - there are some excellent R&B/soul stations in the area.

New director of Vatican plc's UK branch

Don't know what it is about Crosby which produces Archbishops. Robert Runcie for the Anglos and now the Vaticanists have their revenge.

A predictable choice of someone who is not only a redshite, but the expected homophobe and cultural conservative, which goes with the territory. thankfully, this means that he will be further marginalised and seen as a sectarian figure in a country which continues to lose interest in religionism. The Vaticanist variety is particularly struggling, and as the Poles go home, there are no obvious replacements.

I wonder if he will do Ratfinger's bidding with regard to the frankly, hypocritical stance of the English church with regard to gay Catholic priests. The former Hitler Youth member would like to sort this out (meaning 'clear out the gays' from the seminaries - and on one level, I sympathise, as there presence signifies lack of openness and self-acceptance which I think is regrettable). Will Nichols have the bottle to do this?

The G20

Is there anything much to say? Brown got some of what he wanted, but not everything. No-one really knows whether what has been announced will 'work' or not. There were the usual demonstrations, some of which ended up in the pointless breaking of windows - and haven't the RBS heard of shutters?

Is it just me or are there others who find the whole thing unremarkable? We have a cyclical downturn which in a globalised world will inevitably affect every country. Continue to see free trade and globalisation as the answer and expect the same at some time in the future.

MP's expenses

I'm bored to death with this topic. It is open to abuse just as much as any other system like this is open to abuse....

I would suggest that we pay MP's a decent professional London wage, that MP's should then be expected to have one main home either in London or the constituency, and a flat in either as well. London MP's do not need two homes and so should be paid slightly less. MP's in grace-and-favour accommodation should also have a reduced salary.

The current system is bringing politics into disrepute.

I must be doing something right....

Decided to reply to Mad Mel's rantings in the Daily Liar (if you must read, try http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1165719/MELANIE-PHILIPS-When-bishop-leave-Church-England-stand-Christians-hope-left-Britain.html )

And my comment has attracted no less than 104 disapproving voices! That's over 40 ahead of anyone else!

What shame it would be to think of the loony conservatives and reactionaries who lap up Phillips' arrant nonsense agreeing with me....

Anyway, good to see the dreaded Nazi-Rally step down - someone more vain or self-important would be hard to imagine.

Hate speech

I find it rather ridiculous that the almost irrelevant topic of jokes appears to have been the focus of this debate.

I also note that in the commons debate, the so-called 'left-wing' MP David Taylor, led the anti-gay lobby

However, the amendment was defeated and quite right too....and if it stops the terminally unfunny Rowan Atkinson telling any more jokes, all the better! But that isn't what the amendment is about. It should be possible to express a view without being offensive.

Forner Hitler Youth member makes ridiculous comment about condom use....l

The sheer stupidity of Ratfinger continues to make Vatican plc appear even more ridiculous. It is quite obvious to everyone that condom use and promotion of safer sex is part of the strategy to combat HIV. Even in countries where conservative Christian religionism is strong, there is no evidence of widespread abstention.

Condoms are important for this reason, and also to combat population growth, also something Vatican plc and its mistaken actions encourage.

Welfare 'Reform' (Abolition) Bill: the shame of Labour

No left-of-centre party should even consider bringing in legislation such as the Welfare Reform Bill.

These are the MP's who voted against it

Just 30 Labour MP's voted against workfare.

Profoundly depressing.

Whatever this government is, I cannot conceive it to be what I recognise as 'Labour'

Alexander, Danny
Baker, Norman
Barrett, John
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Brooke, Annette
Burgon, Colin LAB
Burt, Lorely
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Campbell, Mr. Ronnie LAB
Carmichael, Mr. Alistair
Caton, Mr. Martin LAB
Clark, Ms Katy LAB
Clegg, rh Mr. Nick
Cook, Frank LAB
Corbyn, Jeremy LAB
Cousins, Jim LAB
Davey, Mr. Edward
Davies, Mr. Dai
Dobson, rh Frank LAB
Drew, Mr. David LAB
Farron, Tim
Flynn, Paul LAB
Foster, Mr. Don
George, Andrew
Gibson, Dr. Ian LAB
Gidley, Sandra
Godsiff, Mr. Roger LAB
Goldsworthy, Julia
Grogan, Mr. John LAB
Harris, Dr. Evan
Harvey, Nick
Havard, Mr. Dai LAB
Heath, Mr. David
Hemming, John
Hoey, Kate LAB
Holmes, Paul
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, David
Huhne, Chris
Hunter, Mark
Iddon, Dr. Brian LAB
Jones, Lynne LAB
Kennedy, rh Mr. Charles
Kilfoyle, Mr. Peter LAB
Kramer, Susan
Lamb, Norman
Laws, Mr. David
Leech, Mr. John
Llwyd, Mr. Elfyn
Martlew, Mr. Eric LAB
Mason, John
McDonnell, John LAB

McFall, rh John LAB
Mitchell, Mr. Austin LAB
Moore, Mr. Michael
Mulholland, Greg
Oaten, Mr. Mark
Prentice, Mr. Gordon LAB
Price, Adam
Reid, Mr. Alan
Rennie, Willie
Riordan, Mrs. Linda LAB
Rogerson, Dan
Rowen, Paul
Russell, Bob
Sanders, Mr. Adrian
Simpson, Alan LAB
Skinner, Mr. Dennis LAB
Smith, Sir Robert
Stunell, Andrew
Taylor, David LAB
Taylor, Dr. Richard
Teather, Sarah
Truswell, Mr. Paul
Wareing, Mr. Robert N.
Webb, Steve
Weir, Mr. Mike
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Mark
Williams, Mr. Roger
Williams, Stephen
Willott, Jenny
Wishart, Pete
Wood, Mike LAB
Younger-Ross, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:

Mr. Neil Gerrard LAB and
Kelvin Hopkins LAB

Larkin was right

I have been following the tale of Julie Myerson and her decision to write a book about throwing her son out of the house because of his drug use
Now, we have her husband, former Labour councillor and journalist Jonathan, putting in his spoke
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/10/cannabis-drug-abuse

I'm very cynical about this entire episode. First, there is something quite unpleasant about writing about one's own family under one's own name, without asking permission. Second, it is clear that the Myerson's have joined the anti-cannabis crusade. Understandable considering the experience they had, but not at all the reaction everyone has to the drug. Some do, some don't.

But surely the main point is that they should wish to build bridges with their son - and this will finish off that possibility for good. It appears to me that what has happened here is that a son has disappointed by not going down the path they had hoped and they are now looking for reasons as to why. The incompatibility of their parenting styles and the son's preferences may be far more relevant than the use of cannabis! Save us from pushy parents

I felt this was perhaps the most appropriate reaction of all

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.

Stem cell research

It is always good when medical advance means that debilitating disease can be tackled. In this light, I welcome the lifting of state funding bans on US research by President Obama. This does not mean that other aspects of stem cell research should not continue which would not use embryonic material, but it is too early to abandon the use of embryos entirely.

Naturally, the right-wing religionists are having kittens at the fact that their values are no longer 'master'. They would prefer to see people die in agony than use a clump of cells hardly visible to the naked eye to find cures. That is truly immoral.

Fred Goodwin

Yet another good reason to nationalise the banks. The money should be withdrawn - and retrospective legislation introduced if necessary. The next step is to ban all bonuses for any reason. They are open to corruption.

But of course, despite its bleating, the Government is still cosying up to the City. They seem to have no inbuilt distaste for these sort of people and their workings and beliefs. Why? They certainly should have, if they claim to be even remotely left-of-centre.

The economy and all that, more social workers, and more Vatican plc

I haven't been blogging much about this issue and do not intend to start making it a regular occurrence. To be honest, I don't know enough about it to make very many useful contributions, and it appears patently clear that no-one really knows what is going to happen and what the solutions are.

And its really that which would be such a relief. For any of the parties to say - actually, we haven't got a bloody clue what to do but we are going to give a few things a try and see if they work. Because that really is the truth, even though they will not admit it

There was a news story in the paper yesterday regarding a young man with child abuse convictions who was placed with a family with children. Clearly, this is not an acceptable situation. But it was interesting to watch the bandwagon-jumpers. You had the 'this is as a result of PC' brigade which suggests that this was done entirely deliberately. Then the 'its all the fault of the incompetent social workers', alongside the 'sack them all, someone must be blamed'. Clearly something went wrong. But what is to be gained by fulminating until we actually know WHAT went on? Then, perhaps, some sensible suggestions can be made?

And now we have Murphy O'Connor complaining again about the fact that his church is just one of many groups who are taken into account when considering public policy. They don't have an automatic veto. For some reason he seems to think that the fact that much of the population was kept in hock to him and his fellow control-merchants in the past should give him a permanent central position in determining what happens in the UK. I do think the church can express its view - just like many other organisations. But like those others, they will have to make a case for their stance - and I think they are unaccustomed to doing so because their mindset is one of obedience to their 'truth', not rational argument. Murphy O'Connor is relatively liberal. Word has it that Ratfinger is determined to install a hardliner to do his bidding - notably to clear all gay men out of the Catholic seminaries. I cannot understand why any gay man would want to join an organisation where they cannot be open in any case, but I do think that many will have a very rough time. Fr. Gerry Proctor's appearance on Cherie Blair's programme on the future of the church displayed that their certainly are good, well meaning people within the Church, but I can't help but think they are fighting a losin g battle. Similarly, although Cherie is clearly a liberal herself - highlighting the sexism and homophobia in the church and calling for inclusion - she confused the surface level 'inclusion' of the US megachurches with genuine liberalism. Those churches may appear 'modern' but they follow a highly reactionary creed. She did not appear to be aware of what they teach, which is miles away from the liberals she interviewed on her C4 programme

Jack Straw: a liar

Of course, the reason the Government have blocked publication of the cabinet minutes must be that they contain information which proves that the government attacked Iraq for reasons other than those they claimed at the time.

It is really very hard to take them seriously or respect them when even now, they cannot admit that they tried to con us all.

Lies are never acceptable. So, the truth, please, and no more Blairite flannel.

Social workers and BMW

I'm not usually overly critical of social workers. They have a difficult job and sometimes they make mistakes. I also tend to think that the tendency to jump in to look for someone to 'blame' is not always sensible.

But, there are always contrary examples. The Websters and Norfolk Social services being one of them. I fail to see why someone should not be held responsible for the decision which took away three children from their parents, even though they had in fact done nothing to warrant it, and equally feel that unless evidence is absolutely water-tight, that 'final' adoption which essentially means that the so-called adoptive parents effectively have the children under false pretences.

I wonder how they can continue to bring them up knowing that there is absolutely no reason why they should be living with them? Do these people have no conscience at all - or does their selfishness and belief that they have a 'right' to a child outweigh that? Wouldn't it be refreshing if they looked for ways of restoring the situation to the way it should be in this instance? Of course, bleating voices about the rights of the children will be made - but here, it is clear enough that the social workers got it wrong. They should be held responsible, just as those who saw demons behind every corner in the non-existent 'ritual abuse' cases should have been removed from any involvement in social work again.

Was there actually any clear evidence at all in this case? It doesn't appear so.

And as for BMW and the redundancies at Cowley. Why can't the available work be shared out more fairly whilst demand is low, rather than reducing workforce numbers - that way you lose skills and make it impossible to return to production should the situation change in the future. And again, an example of agency and part time staff being treated less favourably. Which this so-called Labour (oh, the irony...) Government did naff all about when they had the opportunity.

Freud and crypto-Tories

The question is, surely, how anyone with views very clearly firmly on the Right could have ever been selected as in the least suitable to advise a Labour government.

It says a lot about the judgment of that minister, too. Surely James Purnell should, if he is still in support of the Tory-penned Welfare Reform Bill, join his moneyed mate in the Tories?

It would be quite refreshing if the government - or anyone else - would admit that they don't know all the answers. And forthwith nationalise all the banks and ban all bonuses.

Overpopulation and prayer

Well said, Jonathan Porritt. We do ned to reduce population to ensure a sustainable future. Some appear only too unwilling to accept this - and are selfish enough to think they can breed unremittingly irrespective of the consequences.

And what about the nurse offering to pray for patients? It should be blatantly obvious that pushing one's religion on to others in the workplace is inappropriate. Particularly when those people are in a vulnerable position. The place for religion is the private sphere.

Homophobic reporting....

Interesting to see just how quickly homophobia comes to the fore - and of course, its regarding a case involving children. Because homophobes basically think all gay men are paedophiles, they are only too pleased to have the chance to say so however implicitly.

The facts of the latest case are that the grandparents who now say that they want to look after their grandchildren brought in the social services in the first place - and have both illnesses and many other children.

I don't think we would have heard a whisper about their desire to look after the grandchildren - which they rejected as a solution in the past - if the pros[ective adoptees were not gay.

Bigoted Christian grandparents should not be allowed a veto on who adopts or fosters children, let alone drug-riddled inadequate 'mothers' who have had their children removed from them because of their own weak will and inability to cope.

I don't know enough about the case to say if this is a good decision or not. No-one does, except those directly involved and who do not have preconceived prejudices. The law makes it clear that gay couples can adopt children - the fact that this is only the second in Edinburgh says an awful lot.

I would certainly say that the fact the grandparents decided to turn their grandchildren into political footballs to mount their anti-gay campaign is very good reason for their unsuitability as guardians.

Strikes and foreign workers

I suppose that it will be all too easy for the BNP and co. to jump on the bandwagon and to try and transform understandable frustration into racism.

Fact is, though, that the issues have very little to do with race or even nationality, and everything to do with low wages.

Foreign workers are not recruited because of their additional skills, but because they can be paid more. This is the outcome of, first, neo-liberal economics and the free market, and secondly, uncritical globalisation

Labour should be saying - we got it wrong, that undercutting established workforces is not acceptable, and that the neoliberal experimnet has failed and is over.

Lets start with nationalisation of the banks - without compensation. Permanent in order to control and plan the economy. Then we need to transform the EU into a social democratic network, overturning its free market failings.

Zionist fascism

We now see the sinister and unwelcome influence of Zionist groups and the Israel-can-do-no-wrong lobby placing pressure on the BBC, which they have caved into. This refers to the DAC and the current need for emergency relief in Gaza.

To refuse to allow this appeal is nothing short of a disgrace and entirely unacceptable. The malign influence of the Zionists really must be vigorously opposed.

Obama

Naturally, I have been enthused by the rise to power of Barack Obama, and wish him all the best for the great challenges he faces.

He has made a good start - closure of Guantanamo, and the lifting of the quite ridiculous ban on assisting NGO's who are not anti-abortion, are things which display a clear difference between his approach and that of the fringe religious extremists who Bush was in hock to.

The sad stupidity of the self-hatred movement

Most of us have been aware for quite some time that the self-hating movement, sometimes referred to in terms such as 'ex-gay' or 'post-gay' is full of people with quite severe psychological problems. Not being able to accept themselves, they adopt extreme religionism, become full time poster-boys or girls for self-oppression, and attempt to convince people they are heterosexual by blogs which talk constantly about how great it is to be straight, pictures of trophy wives and children, and even a picture of a double bed in one particularly risible case.

Now, we know that they are still as gay as ever, and I can only hope that they realise that when the inevitable happens, and they cannot bear the lies they have created for themselves any longer, that we are here to help them ( although a little contrition for the harm they have caused others would be welcome!)

But when one hears about the way they treat research...well, words fail me. On principle I do not include homophobic links on this site, but the latest gem is a claim that gay marriage will increase the number of gay people because it will make more people 'become' gay.
Of course, the reality is that those people have been gay all the time, in their closets, and the existence of liberal laws and social equality enables those people to be their true selves. Thus, there are more OPENLY gay and lesbian people. And as a result, more straight people realise that we really are very much the same as them except for our sexual orientation. And they realise how silly anti-gay thinking is.

And it is this which the self-haters and their religionist homophobic allies fear the most. Because here in the UK, they are losing and will continue to lose the argument.

Israel: no future

The murdering thugs of the Zionist state have now been found to be using illegal weapons.

The duplicity and lies of these people will never cease.

Their illegal state, its settlements and its inhabitants must not be allowed to go unpunished. Israel needs to go or the consequences will be grave for us all.

Another victory for gay equality

There have been a number of test cases brought by Christians in an attempt to excuse them from obeying the gay equality laws

They must be regretting this action because so far, they have lost the lot.

The latest is Gary MvFarlane, a sex therapist and counsellor employed by Relate who didn't want to work with same -sex couples. Well he lost and relate were justified in dismissing him

It's the hypocrisy which annoys me. Did he object to counselling unmarried opposite-sex couples - which his religion is also supposedly opposed to? Of course not.

I think that the Christian lobby hoped to win exemptions from the law but I think it unlikely that these sort of cases will even make it as far as a tribunal in future as the precedents will be clear.

Islamic homophobia - an example ( from BBC News)

The jailing in Senegal of nine gay men for eight years over "indecent conduct and unnatural acts" has been condemned by an international gay rights group.

Homosexual acts are illegal in Senegal but the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) told the BBC it was "shocked by the ruling".

The judge added three years to a five-year sentence, saying the men were also members of a criminal group.

Most of them belonged to an association set up to fight HIV and Aids.

"This is the first time that the Senegalese legal system has handed down such a harsh sentence against gays," said Issa Diop, one of the men's four defence lawyers.

The extremity of this sentence [and] the rapidness of the trial all really shocks us in a country which has been moving so positively towards rule of law IGLHRC's Cary Alan Johnson

Mr Diop said he would be appealing against the sentences.

The IGLHRC's Cary Alan Johnson said he was "deeply disturbed" by the case.

"There have been pretty consistent human rights violations… in Senegal," he told the BBC's Network Africa programme from Cape Town in South Africa.

"But the extremity of this sentence [and] the rapidness of the trial all really shocks us in a country which has been moving so positively towards rule of law and a progressive human rights regime."

'Schizophrenic'

The head of a gay rights organisation in Senegal told AFP news agency that the situation for gay people in the country was getting worse.

"Many gays are already fleeing to neighbouring countries because of our living conditions," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Senegal is a predominantly Muslim country and gay men and women remain socially marginalised.

Mr Alan Johnson said Senegal was "schizophrenic" in its attitudes.

Religious attacks on gay and lesbian people were on the increase, he said.

While Senegal recently played host to a major conference on Aids and sexually transmitted diseases, where "the needs of men who have sex with men were prominently featured", he said.

"There's both a movement towards progressive and inclusive culture but at the same time very, very strong movements towards oppression, specifically towards sexuality," he added.

In February 2008, a magazine editor received death threats after publishing pictures claiming to depict a wedding ceremony between two men.

Several men were also arrested in connection with the publication but later released.

Misrepresentation

Its interesting just how some people will try and misrepresent my views

You will find nothing at all on this blog to indicate any support at all for radical Islamists and groups such as Hamas. That's because am totally opposed to their beliefs.

However, if one does not support Israel to the hilt, some then make the immediate assumption that one must be an active Hamas supporter.

Or at least, try and portray someone as having those views to further their own argument.

Let's make a few things clear.

1. I dislike conservative religion of all types
2. I do not support Hamas and think that the Palestinians have not been at all well served by their leadership over the years
3. That does not mean that dislike for Hamas means that Israel's behaviour is justified.
4. And given that I haven't a lot of time for any claim to land using ancient religious precepts, my concern is to maintain peace in an area which threatens world peace. Ideally, I still support a two-state solution, but I can't see it happening, and in that situation, it must be Israel who must withdraw from occupied territories.

I have never expressed any support for Hamas. I do think, though, that there is evidence that Israel did encourage their formation as a means of destabilising the PLO, and that much of their support is based on reaction to Israel's stance. I would certainly be much happier with moderate leadership, but Israel has hardly been a friend to moderate Palestinians over the years.

I'm not a religious or political extremist, which is why I do not sympathise with Zionism. It is also a reason why I have always kept my distance from the organised anti-war movement and groups such as Respect, who I regard with great suspicion. I've been on the marches, but so did many who do not support Hamas. Indeed, many of the local Palestinian support group who I know are from Christian backgrounds or are secular.

Read this

Speaking truth to power.

Israel and Holocaust Remembrance

I've often taken part in the Holocaust remembrance ceremony. It is something I have felt privileged to be part of and an opportunity to recall a moment in history which one hopes will never happen again.

However, over the past few days I have been questioning whether in all conscience I can partake in it this year. The bombing of the UN school has made my decision clear: I cannot partake in an event which indirectly celebrates the creation of israel as a safe haven for a persecuted people where that very nation carries out its own atrocities upon Palestinian citizens and continue to illegally occupy land which is not theirs.

It is always profoundly depressing when the oppressed becomes the oppressor. Hamas, created by the israelis to destabilise the PLO, has become a monster indeed, but a monster which has gained public support given the behaviour of Israel. Nothing should be done to indicate anything other than criticism of Israel and, sadly, that means the Holocaust remembrance services are entirely inapprorpaiate at the moment

Hello to 2009

Which no doubt will continue much the same as 2008.

But its hardly an inspiring start. The Israelis are proving, once again, that they departed from the moral high ground many years ago. I cannot see any conceivable solution to the situation as neither side is prepared to compromise and both claim ownership of the same land. It should serve as a warning that the claims of any religious group to land which they do not occupy should never be heeded, particularly in conditions of misplaced guilt.

World peace should matter most and I cannot foresee a situation where Israel's existence can do anything other than continue to promote discord

The Government continues to make some suggestions which make sense, but one cannot help but think that they still can't quite believe that the market really has landed them into this mess. About time all the banks were in public ownership, and as for the nonsense about shareholders and their 'rights' - give me strength. Buying shares is a risk and failing companies should not be doling out bonuses by means of dodgy registration of different parts of the same company.

I can't feel very enthusiastic about the government, but when Bishops start bleating about 'morality', a concept with which not one of them could ever have any connection, it does make one feel more sympathetic. And there is, quite simply, no political opposition. Clegg has no credibility and we don't need any more economic liberalism. Cameron remains unconvincing and his party has not and can never change, despite the rhetoric.

Anyway, for some reason I have felt tired for most of the past month and I hope to try and gain some energy from somewhere sometime soon.....

The Pope and the real problem....

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

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

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

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

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

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

I mean, of course, overpopulation

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

Irresponsible

I don't know who is more irresponsible.

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

Lillian Ladele ruling overturned

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

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

Police authorities

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

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

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

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

I just don't get it

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

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

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

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

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

Life and death

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

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

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

Rights, not liberties

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

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

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

Nothing better to do

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

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

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

Karen Matthews and the 'underclass'

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welfare reforms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The blame game

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

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

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

Tories. Scum, when all is said and done.

Homophobe of the Week

Step forward religionist former PC Graham Cogman, of Norfolk, who couldn't bear to treat gay people equally and felt obliged to circulate anti-gay material via his work email.

If their brand of religionism doesn't allow them to treat people decently then they have no right to hold the jobs they do. Why can't they hold their views but behave professionally at work and accept that gay people have every right to be treated fairly and equally?

Their job is to serve the public - not to inflict their religious prejudices on the job they hold, which is secular and requires respect for diversity.

I really wish we could hear from the Christians who don't agree with these bigots. the problem is that the evangelical extremists, such as those who frequent Anglican Extreme (sorry, Mainstream (sic)), cannot accept any sort of recognition of the right of gay people to live their lives and be respected and recognised in the public sphere. Ideally, they want us to disappear altogether, but if we have to be tiresome enough to exist, accept our place under a stone.

Sorry, fanatics, but those days are gone, and if you wish to work in public service, you need to accept the law as it is and view gay people as equal within civil society. If you can't do that - don't work in any service providing context. The anti-gay view is no longer acceptable under the law with regard to either the equal provision of goods and services, or employment. if you cannot live with that reality - thats your problem.

Tory scum

You know, they say it only needs a crisis to make you realise that really, there still are 'sides' in politics.

The Tories behaviour over the past few weeks has been disgraceful. Showing themselves in their true colurs, it appears that laissez-faire is once again the order of the day.

Question is - should I rejoin Labour?

The whine of the reactionary....

Just heard the whining tones of the evil Nadine Dorries, Tory MP, and mouthpiece of the fundamentalist Christian lobby. The existence of this waste of oxygen is ample reason to question the idea that the Tory party has changed - if so why are they continuing to select reactionary backwoods individuals such as this?

In any case - hasn't Cameron shown this not to be the case by embracing monetarism and spending cuts in their latest economic policy statements.

Same old Tories.

Remembrance Sunday

In my strongly-pacifist days, I always felt very uneasy about Remembrance Sunday. Its still something I can't really feel any great affinity with - just too militaristic for me.

That aside, I wonder how the day will change should those who remember WW2 finally die. I don't think that those of us who cannot remember can give the day anything like the same sort of dignity.

Moreover, as a way of remembering conflict, can the politicised and divisive wars of the post war era bring people together in anything like the same way? The Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan have all been anything but uniting.....

The latest from Vatican plc....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/psychological-tests-for-priests-to-screen-out-homosexuals-1001059.html is the link...

Essentially, it is a link to an article detailing the Vatican's latest plans to root out gay men from Catholic seminaries. Nothing new there, particularly under Gauleiter Ratfinger, well known former member of the Hitler Youth.

There are some questions worth posing.
1. Given that clearly this sort of thing has not made any difference to the intake of gay men into British Catholic seminaries, is there any reason to think it will do so now?
2. This clearly gives the lie to the nonsense that they really only hate us when we do things they don't like. their loathing is far more visceral
3. Given this stance, can we really be sympathetic to gay men who opt for the self-oppressing mode of remaining within this anti-gay institution? They are clearly not wanted and breaking the rules. So why stay within a place where they are clearly not wanted? The only way this can be done is to lie. Is that either healthy or advisable? Should those who follow this path be supported or are they contributing to the oppression of gay people by remaining within such a homophobic institution?

I don't want to sound overly critical. But when does the hypocrisy have to stop and when do these gay men have to say - enough. No more.

The BBC.....

I haven't talked about this yet.....
I'm not a fan of Brand, and Ross is OK but can be a bit self-indulgent. That being said, this is SUCH a storm in a teacup and a total over-reaction.
The original comments were not wise. Its not a god idea to make comments about someone not on the end of the phone. However, it is clear enough that permission was in fact given to broadcast the call or it wouldn't have happened. Changing your mind after the event doesn't give a lot of credibility. Neither does whingeing about something said about one's sex life when proud to be a self-titled Slut. And perhaps a bit less whining from Sachs, famous for one solitary role which takes the piss out of Spaniards, wouldn't be a bad idea. He's complaining again today - 've lost any respect I had for him, and I didn't have a lot in the first place - third-rate bit-part actor who happened to be given a good script.

What this is really about is money. people don't like the idea of Ross getting lots of public money in hard times. Fair enough. But then don't complain when the BBC isn;t able to attract 'big names'. And if the BBC thinks it can continue to win new viewers whilst trying not to offend Daily Mail readers in Torquay - well, you can't please everyone all the time....

More religionist hilarity

Sometimes I think that I write too much about the pathetic and risible activities of religionists. But its just so tempting......
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/martinbeckford/blog/2008/11/06/gay_wedding_dudley_insists_there_was_no_apology_and_no_frank_discussions
is a link to a daily Torygraph (apologies for such infecting of the blog with this unpleasant rag) blog which tells us the latest about Martin Dudley, a London vicar who carried out a blessing for a gay couple.
The church hierarchy wanted to make it appear that he had been severely disciplined. of course, he hadn't. Now, the churchman involved in this case is the entirely vile 'Bishop' Pete (Call Me Pete) Broadbent, who holds deeply homophobic views, yet tries to pretend he is some sort of left wing progressive. He once sat as a Labour councillor, even though he is to the right of Thatcher, and if you talk to anyone who has met this man, the vitriol is only too plain. You never hear anything but negativity about him. My contact has been a series of rude and badly-written emails from when I was still in the church. He is the epitomy of why we should all leave the Church. He is also remarkably easy to wind up.

Broadbent is playing 'bad cop' here, because he knows that there is little he can do. the diocese is stuffed to the gills with closet gays, and it has, laughably, an equal opportunities policy which supposedly includes sexual orientation. You just couldn't make it up. How can you have an equalities policy when you openly and deliberately ban a whole group of people from participation unless you follow their prejudiced and arcane rules found in their Grimm's Fairy Tales 'holy' book. The Bible, think its called - makes great firewood replacement, along with the crucifixes and icons from one's religionist days - try it! Broadbent also made lots of loud noises about not attending the Lambeth conference because of the Gene Robinson issue, yet still won't own his personal homophobia. He is still under the impression that people think he is left-wing, whereas a more apposite representative of Daily Mail thinking, beneath the gloss of episcopal 'call me Pete' trendiness could not be found. A lot of evangelicals are like this - all strumming guitars and clapping, to hide a deeply reactionary set of beliefs. Don't trust them further than you could throw them - snakes, the lot of them.

One could respect these people more if they would be absolutely honest about what they really do think. But given that half the gays in the church are skulking in their closets, and breaking the rules without working for them to be changed, they are the authors of their own oppression.

There is only one logical answer. Ditch the church, ditch Christian oppression.

You know it makes sense.

America, gay marriage, pragmatism, and racism

I've recently been drawn to a blog I sometimes visit - Mad Priest's Of course, I Could Be Wrong - http://revjph.blogspot.com/

There has recently been some controversy over the use of the 'N' word in discussion about the rejection of gay marriage in California and the fact that black voters opposed it. I found it amusing that homophobic, gay-baiting sites such as Stand Firm, run by Gauleiter Matt Kennedy, far-right by anyone's reckoning, has come over all moral and anti-racist (I think he rather likes blacks because so many are anti-gay - doesn't seem so keen on those who aren't, such as Barack Obama!) Anyway, being criticised by that bunch of religionist swivel-eyed loons can only be seen as something to be congratulated about....so well done, Mad Priest! They banned me years ago - poor things can't cope with anything outside their rather pathetic little world-view.

Anyway, I'm not going to get drawn in to the race issue with regard to this question but I think its primarily about religion, not race per se. And I think this is the problem. The US gay movement appears to be determined to get religion on their side and so works for things which are unlikely to be fulfilled until that country is considerably more secular. The gay marriage issue is the classic example.

In the UK, we have civil partnership. It brings all the benefits, rights and responsibilities of civil marriage, but its got an official different name, and the church aren't involved. And thats because the church is homophobic. Parts of it are trying not to be, but essentially, Christianity is a homophobic religion, and the sooner gay people abandon it to its own fate, the better. That's the conclusion I have reached, in any case. So, what makes sense is to let them get on with it and to work for what is possible. And it seems to me that the US gay movement has lost a sense of pragmatism. Had we said 'nothing but marriage is good enough', then we may not have made any progress at all. But civil partnership is here, here to stay, and now relatively uncontroversial. Tie it up with religion and then wonder why it causes so much angst.

Barack Obama has made it clear that he supports civil unions, but not marriage. Fair enough. Work with him to bring forth legal equality at a federal level but don't get tied up with the unattainable. Will they do this, or will they continue to reject pragmatism - and get nowhere??

Obama

The election of Obama has made me remember this blog again!
It was a convincing win, and whatever one's views, quite an amazing event. I don't think anyone seriously thought that a black American could be elected President until a year or so ago. I think Obama is highly impressive, and I like his calmness and intelligence. The fact that a liberal black Democrat from a Northern state has been elected convincingly - and encouragingly, that young Americans appear to have shifted clearly in a liberal direction - has to be most encouraging. The demographic trends are favourable.

What is more, look at the reaction of the conservatives. Mad Mel Phillips is foaming at the mouth, after having made all sorts of quite ludicrous claims about Obama over the past few months. The religious conservatives on sites such as Stand Firm are fuming. Furious.

To make them so mad, this man must have something. They recognise that their arguments meant nothing and that their reactionary creed is, again, taking a beating, particularly amongst younger voters.

Julie Bindel and Stonewall

There has been quite an outcry over the decision of the nominating committee at Stonewall (who is on the committee - any insight?) to shortlist Julie Bindel as Journalist of the Year. She is one of a , thankfully, dying and outdated breed of antiquated 'radical' feminists - I use the word in inverted commas as they are in fact deeply conservative and reactionary. Her obsessions are: imposing her views on groups working with sex workers, even when they don't agree. The best example was the situation in Liverpool - which I doubt she has ever visited, but still felt able to overturn local research and wishes. Second obsession is wanting to abolish jury trials for rape. This is owing to the unsatisfactory level of convictions in such cases. That is something many people are concerned about,. but the problem is and will always be that any system which relies on proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt will always be difficult when no witnesses are present.

But her third obsession is dislike of transsexuals, to the extent that she has resurrected the arguments of Janice Raymond et al. These have been pretty much discredited all told.

I certainly agree that she has the right to express her mistaken view, although I think the Guardian should have more sense than to give her ill-informed rants any space. But it makes no sense at all for Stonewall to give them any credibility. They have made a mistake and should admit it.

Offshore investors

Just been watching a news bulletin where people who had invested offshore are bemoaning their being treated like 'lepers'.

Well, if the shoe fits - these people decided to try and evade their social responsibility by placing their money in tax free environments. Now, they pay the cost, and I have precisely NO sympathy for them at all.

They reap what they sow. There are good times, and there are bad. They accept that they benefited from boom, and they lose during bust.

Defeat for 42 day detention without trial

And i should think so too. Not only is there a loophole which can be used in particularly difficult cases, like other countries, we should simply charge those we suspect and have evidence about. Why the Government allowed themselves to go up this dead end is anyone's guess. The outcome was obvious.

The Killing of Thomas Hurndall

Currently watching this very powerful C4 drama. A no doubt ironical comment about Israel being a 'democracy'. Wrong. It is nothing of the sort. It is a confessional state established out of a sense of misplaced guilt, and should never have been created. The supposed need for a Jewish state is no excuse for the initial confiscation of others' land, let alone their behaviour ever since, which if not for the USA's support would have seen the country fall many years ago. I still think it is unlikely that Israel will survive, long-term, and neither should it. This drama sums up exactly why. It has become a millitaristic bandit country which deserves the epithet 'fascist' every bit as much as the nation which helped to bring it into existence. I cannot see a two state solution happening now, more's the pity, but the time for such compromise seems to have passed. Israel's continued existence in its current position is a threat to world peace, and some other long-term solution will need to be found.

Little comment says it all

You may well have already gathered from my topics chosen on the blog that economics doesn't interest me all that much, but at the moment the papers are full of little else

It is interesting that there appears to be a good deal of consensus, and I have very great doubts as to whether this or any other government will sell on their interests in the banks in future.

Monetarism is clearly heaving its last gasp along with the myth of the unfettered free market, and am sure that Keynes is having a chuckle wherever he is.....

Cameron may still be elected but unless they make a major U-turn, it is hardly going to be under policies recognisable as Tory in recent years. I really don't think he is up to it and hope that somehow, this will be accepted. If we are going to have more social-democratic policies and economic interventionism and regulation, then i would rather it was done by Labour.

Kelly's departure....

Think this just about sums it up

Mike

More from Labour....

Brown's speech was OK. It was serviceable and will keep him in post for the time being. But his future and that of the Government will not depend on a single speech.

As for Ruth Kelly's departure....I can't pretend to be anything other than pleased that she has gone. In my view, no-one associated with Opus Dei, essentially the voice of neo-fascism within Vatican plc, should have even been allowed on the candidates list for the Labour party. However, whether her reasons for resignation are genuine or not has raised some interesting issues about the expectations that we have of MP's and ministers. Is it really possible for them to live lives even approaching 'normality'?

I also listened to an interesting feature on the radio this morning which looked at people's choices with regard to their jobs. A number of callers noted how difficult it was to return to work after a break, and moreover, how difficult it was to get any sort of professional post on a part-time basis. I think this is something the Government could have done far more about. The negativity towards part time staff is legendary, and I'm afraid I have found the unions of very little help. If anything, in my field, their promotion of full time secure jobs make it all the worse for those of us who don't actually want to work full time....

First day of the Labour conference

Far from the bloodbath which the press were no doubt looking forward to, the conference was instead, remarkable only because of its sheer dullness. The open defiance of Brown appears to have subsided somewhat, but for how long? here doesn't seem to be very much there to inspire or excite - but really, how could there be? Other than the Government turning round and saying, yes, we got much of the last 11 years wrong, what can they say which will have any credibility?

Miliband's speech was OK, I think he may well be less of a turn-off than Brown, but I wouldn't expect the policies to change greatly. In such circumstances, who else than Labour should be sorting out the city? But they have spent so long slobbering over every word they say, would anyone believe them?

I still think the Tories would be worse than Labour. But there is nothing here which inspires, nothing which would make me want to go out and campaign again.

Well said, Baroness Warnock

Refreshing to hear someone talking sense. Whilst the medical profession insists on developing medications to keep us alive whilst being unable to deal with the effects of ageing, there is a studious inability to get to grips with the consequences. The social services play on people's feelings of guilt in order to reduce their provision, and rely on informal care. And the consequences? Generally disastrous, though again, no-one is honest enough to admit it. Thanks to Baroness Warnock for doing so, despite the whines of religionists and the self-interest groups such as the Alzheimers Society.

We need legalised voluntary euthanasia and the sooner the better.

Sucking up to the City

I don't always agree with Ian Hislop, but he was right on the money with his comment on the Government and the City - pointing out that Government had spent the last 10 years sucking up to them, and forgetting that markets are amoral and so require regulation.

Of course, there are limited measures Government can take, but quite how anyone can now regard the free market as the best way to run a modern economy is anyone's guess. Yet we have three main parties none of who are prepared to be as critical as necessary. The forked-tongue words of the other parties don't wash either. The Tories are equally wedded to the free market, and whilst Cable has warned about the danger of easy credit in the past, the LD's themselves are moving in a more market-orientated direction, not less.

Only the State can regulate these markets. Its about time that the Government started being proper social democrats. They interfere where the State should not encroach, yet they will not use the necessary regulation to prevent the charlatans of the City behaving in a completely unacceptable way. Even now these people are walking away with massive bonuses.

It is simply a disgrace from a so-called Labour government

The Liberal Democrats

Today, the Liberal Democrats, who I had considered as a possible home for my vote at the next election displayed that they have abandoned social democracy and become a fully fledged neo-liberal party. Indistinguishable from the Tories, only with a leader even more toe-curlingly yeuch. Not progressive in the least - right wing, pure and simple. The outcome of tax cuts will be service cuts. One leads to another - it's obvious to everyone else, but clearly not to these neo-liberals.

I won't be voting for Clegg under any circumstances. Let them chase Tory voters - why vote for the pretend Tories when the real ones are credible?

Boston and Cape Cod

Got back a couple of days ago from a very good holiday on America's East Coast. Boston is a great city - quieter than New York, but busier than San Fran. Lots of seafood, plenty to do - including some quite unusual attractions. Its the birthplace of Christian Science, and the Mary Baker Eddy museum is fascinating indeed. I have a copy of Science and Health, but have never read it in depth....included within the museum is the Mapparium, a model of the earth and its countries dated 1935 which you enter - its a huge globe.
Did a bit of travelling round - wineries in Connecticut and Rhode Island (two more states visited....) and a trip up the coast to Gloucester and Rockport. The latter is particularly pleasant.

Cape Cod was charming - Provincetown is delightful, and early September is a good time to visit.

Whilst we were there, the truly dreadful Sarah Palin was chosen as republican VP candidate. Loathsome woman, vile views. The thought of her as president is risible: she really does sum up everything wrong with America. But I don;t think her appeal is as great as reported - she seems to have roused democrats into action. I think that black voter turnout may be key.

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....