Wednesday, October 05, 2011

Cameron: “I will lead you to the Promised Land"

There will be war and rumours of war; gloom, suffering, trial and tribulation. But David Cameron will lead us to the Promised Land: he will build the New Jerusalem and guide us to a time of plenty in a land flowing with milk and honey.

That was the essential thrust of the Prime Minister’s speech to the Conservative Party Conference and the nation. Cats and credit cards aside, it was an inspirational feel-good speech of the sort a leader has to make when the going is tough. And, boy, is it tough. It’s not quite Armageddon, but there’s just about every other apocalyptic disaster scenario present or immanent: alien terrorism; earthquake and tremors in the economy; famine in our homes; infection and plague in our political system; triffids are gathering in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy and Spain. All that’s missing is a collision with a comet and an extinction level biotic crisis.

But David Cameron will lead us out of this mess. And as he does so, he promises to build something worthwhile for us and our children. And so he talked of courage, sacrifice and moral strength. These are the only antidote to failure, pessimism, social problems and decline. The British, he said, are hard-working, pioneering, independent, creative, adaptable, optimistic, and ‘can-do’: “That’s the spirit that has made this United Kingdom what it is: a small country that does great things; one of the most incredible success stories in the history of the world.”

With appeals to Macmillan’s property-owning democracy, it was the speech of a one-nation ‘compassionate Conservative’. He brings us the ‘one-nation deficit reduction plan’ of a ‘one-nation party’. And he laid his compassionate credentials (very heavily) before us, talking of social projects in Rwanda, of women cuddling their babies, of the life-saving aid Britain gives to help the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. It got applause in the hall, but more than a few outside will question why we’re spending billions on overseas aid while our own bills keep going up – petrol, the weekly shop, gas, electricity; while the news is of job losses, cutbacks, closures; while we’re introducing tuition fees, and wondering how our children will ever cope. There’s no point preaching care and compassion when people want jobs and security.

But we are asked to trust: “Our plan is right. And our plan will work,” he said. And with allusions to biblical themes, he asks who but the Conservatives will lift the poorest up. It is only the wise Conservatives who build their house on rock: “The new economy we’re building: it’s like building a house. The most important part is the part you can’t see – the foundations that make it stable. Slowly, but surely, we’re laying the foundations for a better future. But this is the vital point: it will only work if we stick with it.”

Of course, sand is ubiquitous and cheaper to get to. It’s what Labour chose to build on. And it looks great and feels good – for a while.

There was a liberal smattering of feel-good verbiage - start, grow, build, thrive, succeed. And the Prime Minister is the very embodiment of hope and optimism. But there was an awful lot of hot air and waffle. “Unlocking growth and rebalancing our economy also requires change in Brussels,” he explained. You don’t say. So what are you doing about it? “The EU...isn’t working properly,” he opined. Well, what an earth-shattering revelation that is. What are you doing to change it? He talked of children growing up in a system that ‘keeps fudging the difference between right and wrong’. So, you’re abolishing moral relativism? He bemoaned that only 60 children out of 3660 under the age of one were adopted last year. You think forcing the closure of Roman Catholic adoption agencies helps?

But his ‘driving mission in politics is to build a Big Society, a stronger society’.

Ah, so it’s not the New Jerusalem.

We can safely leave that to Labour.

He explained that he supports ‘gay marriage’ because he’s a Conservative.

That’s curious.

His Grace opposes ‘gay marriage’ because he’s a Conservative.

Broad Church?

Mr Cameron explained some months back that ‘Christians should be tolerant and welcoming and broad-minded’.

So it really comes as no surprise to His Grace that he is intolerant, unwelcoming and narrow-minded, which amounts to being unloving, inhospitable and bigoted. Yes, His Grace opposes ‘gay marriage’, so in the Cameron theo-political paradigm he can be neither Conservative nor Christian; just a noisy gong and a clanging cymbal.

A bit like the Prime Minister’s speech.


Blogger Albert said...

Dr Cranmer,

He bemoaned that only 60 children out of 3660 under the age of one were adopted last year. You think forcing the closure of Roman Catholic adoption agencies helps?

You are forgetting that the kind of liberalism Cameron thinks he needs to sign up to, is a kind of a priori fundamentalism that neither needs evidence, nor can be refuted by evidence. Obviously, gay equality is more important than vulnerable children - even when the point is only symbolic.

Let's hope his economic policy has firmer foundations.

5 October 2011 at 17:02  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

Why are these things distributed in advance to the media, anyway? If they want to know what the Prime Minister has to say, then they should turn up and listen to his speech. It is high time that they were put in their place, and this would be a very good place to start.

"I'll never join the euro," said Cameron. The donkeys duly nodded and brayed their approval. But Gordon Brown decided that one a long time ago, Dave. Still, not the only point at which Cameron sounded Old Labour. He endorsed the right to work, and they even applauded that. Imagine if Ed Miliband had said that last week. The Blairite media holders out for his brother, which is all of them in their little huddle being told what the line is, would have gone bananas.

And as for booing former Leaders, the Labour delegates, including several MPs first elected last year, were specifically booing Tony Blair. Cameron should have mentioned that name. If they had booed, then they would by implication have been booing him, the Heir to Blair. And if they had not booed...

5 October 2011 at 17:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"You think forcing the closure of Roman Catholic adoption agencies helps?"

He didn't force them to close.

5 October 2011 at 17:31  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

So nothing new there. I think Cranmer forgets that Cameron is by training a spin doctor and that this speech was aimed at a different audience from himself. If past form is anything to go by - the true believers such as Cranmer will hear their dog whistles elsewhere.

To be honest I think that Miliband was the only one who had anything new to say in his speech, Cameron had the best presentation and Clegg had nothing new to say and only spoke to his own party. But to be honest I suspect the long term political impact of all three speeches will be pretty negligible.

5 October 2011 at 17:41  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

It appears that he has now shown his true colours to you at long last
(phew..that was a long time coming and we did keep telling you..A Wet in sheep's clothing!).

First he wants us to clear our credit and store card debts, pronto..we are all in this together, are we not? Ernst presumes it's to facilitate the treasury and others such as energy, petrol companies, supermarkets, banks etc extracting more from us once we have struggled to quickly get our personal debt to near nil. Aye, Aye sir!

Then he says Whoa..What are you all doing, don't stop spending. You must get down there and spend spend spend or it all collapses, where is the growth going to come from?..Credit cards, Store cards spiral again, savings depleted!

He further wants us to dig deep into our pockets for foreign charitable causes as Andrew Mitchell pontificated today, even though we give through normal charities as well as the one off's such as comic relief and Remembrance day poppy buying etc.

Do you think they have a plan (any sensible one from a-z would suffice) or is it that Joe and Joanna Bloggs themselves must do it all and then the political chancers say, 'it woz the coalition wot dun it'!.

Sorry, what was the noise you just heard?
Think it was Ernst doing an impression of an instrument that goes *Bong* and *Tisssh*.

Hooray, the annual party conference pantomime season is over (*cheers ring out*), until next year (*dejected sighs and boos and hisses*!


5 October 2011 at 18:02  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Cameron a compassionate Conservative?

‘It’s Darwinian,’ a former speechwriter for Cameron told me the other day. ‘Dave and George basically like laughing at losers.’—Damian Thompson

5 October 2011 at 18:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

So sad about Catholic Adoption Agencies. Every child deserves a mother and father. Why punish the little ones in this way. How can politicians be so heartless and still sleep at night.

5 October 2011 at 19:00  
Blogger Roy said...

DanJ0 wrote concerning Cameron and the closure of the Roman Catholic adoption agencies:

He didn't force them to close."

Of course he did. Parliament, with the support of the Prime Minister, decided to make it impossible for any adoption agency to carry on its work if the agency believes that orphans and children who cannot be brought up by their natural parents deserve a mother AND a father.

There is absolutely nothing that was controversial about the views of the Catholic adoption agencies but our degenerate Parliament decided to pander to the desires of selfish gay activists.

5 October 2011 at 19:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Parliament, with the support of the Prime Minister, decided to make it impossible for any adoption agency to carry on its work if the agency believes that orphans and children who cannot be brought up by their natural parents deserve a mother AND a father."

Just rewording it doesn't change the fact that he didn't force them to close. A child deserves a supportive, loving home in the first instance. I'd rather a child be placed in a supportive, loving home with even just one parent than stay in the care system. It's a pity the welfare of the child is apparently not top of the list with these people.

5 October 2011 at 19:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

If Gays do have the best interests of parentless children at heart, they could themselves campaign for a change in the law to exclude Catholic Adoption Agencies and others from this sad unjust law. That’s if Gays can put the interests of the welfare of these small children above their own agendas...

5 October 2011 at 19:54  
Blogger outsider said...

Albert said:"Let's hope his economic policy has former foundations."

Sorry Albert, it hasn't.

5 October 2011 at 19:59  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Yeah, a 'Promised Land' of homosexual 'marriages' because that's what a conservative today believes in!


5 October 2011 at 20:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

OoIG: "That’s if Gays can put the interests of the welfare of these small children above their own agendas..."

If a same sex couple can and want to adopt a child and they're suitable as adoptive parents then the welfare of the child is served. Why campaign to deny children a nominally suitable route out of the care system simply to make Catholic adults happy with themselves? The agencies are essentially acting as regulated agencies of the State, their primary concern should be the welfare of the children. Adoptive parents of any type naturally have multiple motives for wanting to adopt a child.

5 October 2011 at 20:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Anyway, feck 'em. The State can and probably should provide all adoption facilities itself. Problem solved.

5 October 2011 at 20:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Not saying it would be easy but it can be done. And it’s not just Catholic adults, probably 95% + of the population in general agree (Bit like Tingey here, nothing to back that up with).
Think of it, a mum to run to when hurt, and a dad to look up to, just like their friends. They might even invite their friends to visit !

5 October 2011 at 20:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, googling around, I can see that the former Catholic Caring Services is now Caritas Care as far as actual adoption is concerned, having become independent.

Back in 2005, Catholic Caring Services had this in the FAQ: "Catholic Caring Services will welcome enquiries from single people and from unmarried couples who are in stable, long term relationships." under the question: "Do I have to be married to apply to Catholic Caring Services?"

Obviously the children deserve a mother and a father as you say but they were prepared to place children with single people and unmarried couples :O if one takes their webpage at face value. What do you make of that?

5 October 2011 at 20:52  
Blogger Cam Ma said...

Same sex couples are NOT suitable as adoptive parents precisely because they do not offer the child concerned a natural family home. The welfare of the child chould come first - which excludes living with an unnatural couple.

5 October 2011 at 20:57  
Blogger martin sewell said...

Dan J0
Can I offer some information without abuse?
I speak as one who worked for many years in adoption law
I was not only happy to act in some of the earliest gay adoption cases when they were ground breaking but am one of the few who has stood in a pulpit to explain to my congregation why gay adoption is sometimes the right answer.

The Catholic Adoption Agencies were a small part of the adoption placement system. No gay person was ever unable to adopt because the Catholic Church prevented it. Something like 90% of the adoption placements occurred through Local Authorities which were and are Adoption Agencies in their own right.

The Catholic Agencies had a very special niche role. Some parents whose children went into care wanted their child to continue in the faith. It is a statutory requirement to take such matters into account. Their presence was a quick one stop shop for such cases.

What most people do not know is that the Catholic agencies did amazing work with children who had extreme disability, or limited life span. It takes a very special person to put themselves through the adoption regime, and then choose to take a child who needs huge time commitment love care and devotion by parents who know that the child has such limited life chances. Such people are little short of saints and often it is their faith that gave them that little bit extra to take on such cases. Your 100% State response is really very shallow; you really do not understand how difficult it is and what a dreadful thing was done to some of those children who now lie in institutional care because some of the agencies have gone.

To put the opinionated gay activist interest before that of these vulnerable children was a tragedy.

Having said that, I readily acknowledge that some gay couples without belief also found the strength to take on difficult to place children.

I would have had no problem with gay only adoption agencies. The problem is that we have many children in care who almost nobody wants or will want and losing a really valuable resource that successfully looked after some of them was just heartbreaking.

5 October 2011 at 21:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ma: "The welfare of the child chould come first - which excludes living with an unnatural couple."

As Catholic Care Services said: "What is important is that adopters are able to meet the needs of children, and provide a stable, loving home environment."

Presumably, it was the hypothetical needs of an potentially gay teenager which meant that the Pentecostal Christian couple earlier this year were excluded.

5 October 2011 at 21:05  
Blogger martin sewell said...

Cam ma

I have known children who have been through multiple failed adoption placements. Every failed attachment significantly reduces the chance of that child ever making a secure emotional attachment in life - childhood or adult. This only gives another twist to the spiral when they become a parent.

In one of those cases the child's gay uncle and his partner, with whom the child had an existing sound relationships came forward to offer adoption.

If you put the child's interests first - as you purport to do - would you not have agreed that the child's needs might be best served in going with the existing functional relationships than "taking a chance" with straight strangers" ?

5 October 2011 at 21:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin: "I would have had no problem with gay only adoption agencies."

I would.

"Your 100% State response is really very shallow; you really do not understand how difficult it is and what a dreadful thing was done to some of those children who now lie in institutional care because some of the agencies have gone."

Send them to Caritas Care or any other religious organisations who have chosen to put the needs of the children first.

The saints you talk about can just as well go to a State agency or a more tolerant religious organisation to adopt.

5 October 2011 at 21:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


As Martin Sewell points out, Catholic adoption agencies did not prevent gay couples from adopting, only through them for obvious religious reasons.

You can of course be considered for adoption all the way to 16. Catholic adoption agencies were particularly good at placing the older children with sometimes a single adoptive parent. If the child was so disruptive as sadly can be the case, one to one guidance is considered ideal, especially if the adoptive parent themselves were versed in ‘the ways of the street’ professionally, eg a social worker.

5 October 2011 at 21:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

No comment on Catholic Caring Services then, Inspector, and their policy for single people or people living in sin adopting through their agency?

5 October 2011 at 21:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "As Martin Sewell points out, Catholic adoption agencies did not prevent gay couples from adopting, only through them for obvious religious reasons."

Do the obvious religious reasons not extend to people living in sin? Or perhaps they welcomed enquiries so they could tell the couples to piss off and repent of their sin first? I keep trawling their website looking around because I must surely be mistaken that their policy was as I have set out.

5 October 2011 at 21:37  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

martin sewell

Well said @21:04.

Your balanced opinion evidences insightful professional knowledge and experience in both secular and religious adoption.

5 October 2011 at 21:41  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


What a silly, narrow minded, little twerp you really are.

5 October 2011 at 21:44  
Blogger Hereward said...

The new economy we’re building: it’s like building a house. The most important part is the part you can’t see – the foundations that make it stable.

Foundations adjacent to EU economic quicksands are unstable.
Exactly how are we to become hard-working, pioneering, independent, creative, adaptable, optimistic, and ‘can-do’ when our Parliament is subservient to Brussels.
We can never again be a small country that does great things unless we get our freedom back.

5 October 2011 at 21:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "What a silly, narrow minded, little twerp you really are."

Well done you for your reasoned response there.

5 October 2011 at 21:46  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Danjo- I thought you said you were a Mill style Liberal[ on other posts] do you think the 'state' should provide? Isn't that very anti- classical liberal old bean?

5 October 2011 at 21:51  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

PS- Not looking for a fight, life is too short for that.

5 October 2011 at 21:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


But there you have the answer in my last post. Babes in arms would be ideal for traditional Catholic couples of man and woman. The more ‘difficult’ cases would be considered for single people and cohabitees. You have to consider that the child’s interests are paramount. You might think ‘well that’s not egalitarian’; cohabitees not being considered for babies at the first, but we are talking of Catholic adoption agencies here. Life doesn’t always run the way us individuals would like it; found that at my own expense. It may hurt to begin with, but a fellow like you would come to live with it.

5 October 2011 at 21:58  
Blogger Sam Vega said...


Your posts on this blog are one of the reasons I read it. I don't always agree with the substance of what you say, but your attitude to those who become abusive towards you is quite inspirational.

Just thought you needed to know that you are appreciated, in case it ever gets you down...

5 October 2011 at 22:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Twigg: "Danjo- I thought you said you were a Mill style Liberal[ on other posts] do you think the 'state' should provide? Isn't that very anti- classical liberal old bean?"

Mill wasn't a libertarian and providing adoption services isn't an economic activity.

5 October 2011 at 22:01  
Blogger Berserker said...

Consumerism is dying.

That's the truth we are not being told.

It's like a once beautiful film actress being kept alluring by cosmetic surgery (read credit card borrowing and bank loans) But the old girl has to face the call of nature eventually.

So should individuals pay off their debts? If they pay it off quickly they can start spending again because they will have more money in their pockets and won't want to save especially when rates are so low. But of course, they cannot spend while they are repaying. if they pay it off slowly or not at all their debt cripples their ability to spend. But it is worse (or better) than that.

The point is that this squeeze has frightened the horses and even when consumers ever get the means to spend again and especially when it is their money and not the banks they will be much more careful with their spending decisions. Spending in future will be on necessities.

The best we can hope for is that the corpse of consumerism will be sent to the undertakers for a little bit of TLC. We need to look at the whole system of production and usury.

Does Islam have anything to teach us on this?

5 October 2011 at 22:09  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Danjo- in Latin. Backwards. And drunk. Then we can discuss. When the avelanche is falling it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

5 October 2011 at 22:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Babes in arms would be ideal for traditional Catholic couples of man and woman. The more ‘difficult’ cases would be considered for single people and cohabitees."

That's an astonishing comment.

Incidentally, their website says: "[...]Catholic Caring Services welcomes enquiries from applicants from all backgrounds and religions, or people who do not hold any religious belief so long as their commitment is to provide a loving family home for a child." in response to the question: "Do I have to be Catholic to apply to Catholic Caring Services?"

"You might think ‘well that’s not egalitarian’; cohabitees not being considered for babies at the first, but we are talking of Catholic adoption agencies here."

Perhaps you're not seeing the size of the issue here. This Catholic adoption agency, before the Bishop of Lancaster forced a break, was prepared, at least in theory, to accept single people and people living in sin adopting through them but not same sex couples. I make the point again and again that lots of Christians seem obsessed with homosexuality despite the other sexual sins and this demonstrates it rather well. It's hypocrisy written in neon by the look of it.

It also takes your point about children deserving a mother and a father, thereby excluding same sex couples, and tramples it under foot. You're rather hoping to avoid any focus on that now, I think.

5 October 2011 at 22:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Sam: "Just thought you needed to know that you are appreciated, in case it ever gets you down..."

Well, thank you. It almost never gets me down. :) However, I can be quite abusive too when needs must I'm afraid. But not to try to obfuscate issues in a crisis like our Dodo there.

5 October 2011 at 22:24  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Lets try reason and see where it leads. It means seeing the situation through the eyes of the Catholis Church which you stubbornly refuse to do.

Hetrosexual partnerships, where the couple are not married, offers the possibility of marriage at a later date. In and of itself, it is not a damaging situation in which to place a child.

Homosexuality is, according to Catholic doctrine, an objective disorder, an evil, and is therefore on an entirely different level.

A homosexual 'family' would model a lifestyle the Church considers an unnatural parody of human intimate relationships ordained by God. Placing a child with such a couple would expose it to an inherent immorality of a different level entirely to a non-married couple who are nevertheless committed for life. Doing so would threaten the proper social development of the child but also their spiritual development.

Are Roman Catholic birth parents no longer entitled to specify the religion of their child?

5 October 2011 at 22:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


You do seem to be rather obtuse tonight. Of course the agency welcomes all, but prioritises according to Catholic principles. For example, if there was a Gay adoption agency, it would prioritise first to gay couples, and then leave the hard to place children to heterosexual couples. The Catholic agency just does it in reverse.

I must stand by my position that an adopted child deserves a father and a mother. ALL children do. And of course, children can be such bastards to each other in the play ground when it comes to parents. Come to that, adults can be such bastards to each other, full stop; but at least they are mature enough to cope, one would hope.

I take your point about the obsession with homosexuality, but you must appreciate that many heterosexuals feel threatened by it. Not the Inspector though, he’s so full of testosterone that he positively oozes it (Ahem, we’ll leave that there I think...)

5 October 2011 at 22:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo old chum

You’re not going to get far by inferring DanJ0 follows evil. As a born homosexual, he sees himself as normal, and WE are the ones with the problem. You will only rile him...

5 October 2011 at 23:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "You’re not going to get far by inferring DanJ0 follows evil. As a born homosexual, he sees himself as normal, and WE are the ones with the problem."

I consider both heterosexuals and homosexuals as normal in respect of their sexuality. It's not inherently a moral matter to me either way. It's like hair colour or being left or right handed.

Some people used to think left-handed-ness was a big problem or even an indication of evil. Now we just make left-handed can-openers and don't try to make left-handed people write with their right hands at school. No problem.

5 October 2011 at 23:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I suppose Catholic Caring Services might have 'welcomed' single people and people living in sin enquiring about or actually applying to adopt but just gave them advice on the legal process and told them to apply to the normal adoption agency down the road because they didn't match their Catholic family criteria? In which case their website was a bit disingenuous to say the least. But hey.

5 October 2011 at 23:28  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Cameroon's speech I thought was very well delivered, positive and uplifting up to the point where he uttered the two most incompatible words ever, namely “gay marriage”. This brought it down to cult status with a bump. Time will tell of course if it turns out to be empty rhetoric as usual.

It isn't a good idea to let same sex couples adopt as what are the chances that they put the child through unnecessary abnormalities such as Lesbians dressing an adopted son in girl's clothes and posting photo on Facebook. Or even lesbians bringing up an adopted boy as a girl and getting his sex changed before puberty sets in. Or homosexuals adopting boys who are reared to adopt the gay lifestyle. Is this really the best start a child can have in life? And what about the anguish the children go through with long drawn out custody battles as the one recently with the lesbians and the gay father. It's all very bizarre and disquieting.

The Catholics have got to stand firm on their adoption requirements otherwise it only causes confusion for the flocks and weakens their position. I suppose they could offer to marry cohabiting male/female couples who apply for adoption?

6 October 2011 at 00:20  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


As a Christian you'll acknowledge we are all born with a predisposition to sin. Besides, I recall DanJ0 himself expressing the opinion homosexuality was caused by environmental circumstances.

Homosexuals have testosterone too!

6 October 2011 at 00:58  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

DanJO said ...

"I consider both heterosexuals and homosexuals as normal in respect of their sexuality. It's not inherently a moral matter to me either way."

And you're perfectly at liberty to hold this view. Catholics disagree for the reasons I've given. That's why the Church and adoption agencies hold the views they do. We are entitled to our views too. Get it?

6 October 2011 at 01:03  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


I said: "Homosexuals have testosterone too!" and, of course, if they are of the female variety they will have estrogen.

6 October 2011 at 01:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Besides, I recall DanJ0 himself expressing the opinion homosexuality was caused by environmental circumstances."

... in the womb, and I expect I said that there are probably multiple vectors to it.

"Catholics disagree for the reasons I've given. That's why the Church and adoption agencies hold the views they do. We are entitled to our views too. Get it?"

Of course I get it. However, if Catholics hold those views and choose to manifest them in regulated areas, such as in supplying goods and services, then they can expect to be kicked for it. It's the same as racists who are entitled to their views too but if they discriminate against people in their role of (say) employers because of the colour of those people's skin then they can expect to be kicked too. Get it?

6 October 2011 at 06:34  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Your Grace, last night I completely failed to avoid the Conservative party political broadcast. Pretty much in the same way the Not the Tories completely failed to actually inform the nation how they intend to tackle the financial shitstorm heading our way.

Instead the Not the Tories wasted airtime telling us how they were going to avoid all the visual clichés by recreating the very same clichés they said they weren't going to use. Genius! The mother liquor of weapons grade, WTF wibbling.

So, while I was watching these idiots doing something they insisted they weren't going to do (it seems to be something of a comfort zone?), I wondered what the punchline was going to be. The defecit? The energy crisis? The War on Plastic Bags? Maybe I was watching a rather dim witted spoof? Sadly, no.

The punchline, when it finally struck, was jaw-dropping. Apparently, the most pressing need of the Tories, at 6pm last evening, was the singular necessity to justify the increased billions in foreign aid the Coalition has ringfenced. They laid on an industrial strength guilt trip straight out of the manual of NGO/fakecharity manipulative campaigning.

That's right. Forget the defecit and the spiralling cost of government expenditure and borrowing. Forget the looming energy crisis and the millions of British people falling into energy poverty, some having already died with more to follow, at a time when AGW has been revealed as nothing more than a very cruel hoax/political agenda. Forget the Euro crisis that is absolutely, positively going to financially eviscerate us when that benighted currency collapses. What we should all be focused on is the government's interminable deep felching of our pockets so that Cameron can ponce about, feeling and looking good, on the international stage.

What the hell did we do to deserve such a bunch of self-serving, grossly incompetent, intellectual pygmies who wear their arses for hats? And no, I didn't vote for the buggers.

6 October 2011 at 08:51  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

I thought marriage was about the union of man and woman - specifically.

The purpose is to produce and raise children.

If, now, a marriage can be for unions that cannot have this aim then all unions can be marriage, surely. me and my dog, me and my mum, me and my sister/daughter.

As unappealing as they may be to me they far more appealing than the thought of some guy humping me!!

Camoron is so wrong on this - is civil partnership not enough? And why is civil partnership restricted to gays? Is that not discriminatory too? It should be open to all and sundry. Including my dog.

After all to Camoron its all about "commitment".

Christ on a bike !!

6 October 2011 at 10:16  
Blogger Owl said...

Strange, HG writes a very perceptive article on the PM's speech and has two minor references to the issue homosexuality, i.e. adoption agencies and the PM's support of "gay" marriage.

The stonewall stalker manages to write 16 posts on this subject, a third of all posts to date even though the issue is minor compared to the economics situation which really is causing concern.

Another hi-jacked blog.

My two pennies worth:

Newer statistics state that the level of homosexuality is around or even under one percent.

Homosexual marriages are considered unnatural by the majority of society mainly for secular reasons, the religeous reasons come way down in the scale.

Children always form groups and a child who is excluded will suffer as we already know.

A child being brought up by a homosexual pair might as well have a target on his/her backside.

Peer pressure and or criticism is very important to the child, why put him/her into this hopeless situation just because a tiny minority are feeling their oats?

The attack is, of course, against the family as a building block of society with the state taking over as "father" in recent decades and also as "mother" in the future if these people get their way.

They won't as the backlash has already started some time ago.

Pink Dave is just saying what he has been told to say. As his Grace so nicely put it "a liberal smattering of feel-good verbiage". Sounds similar to Fabian semantics.

There is no point in waiting for DC to do anything about the serious problems the country faces.

The time has come to ask "what are we going to do about it".

6 October 2011 at 10:23  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Camorons speech was just like so many motivational business conference stuff I have had to attend over the years.

Camoron is conning us over the Human Rights Act, multiculturalism, immigration, deficit reduction and much more.

Spin and lies. Smoke and mirrors. The coalition was a Godsend to him - an excuse to continue the NuLabour project.

The Tory party seems to have ceased to exist.

If I am wrong he will prove it. Lets just judge him in 4 years time.

6 October 2011 at 10:25  
Blogger whitespacebug said...

It beats me why anyone would expect a politician these days to say anything in public worth hearing. The only important things they ever say are said behind closed doors to their benefactors in big business. All the rest is either pointless waffle or if they are too careless, transparent lies. See Theresa May.

6 October 2011 at 10:48  
Blogger Preacher said...

The British are hard working, pioneering, independant, etc, all very true, as is all the other pep talk.
Our heritage consists of a mixture of the cream of the crop of Europes toughest peoples, Celts, Vikings, Saxons, Romans, Normans & of course the later strong people who came from the old colonies & commonwealth. They were pioneers who carved an Empire with their guts & Blood, a tiny island with strong brave people that would stand & win against powerful attackers & dictators.

Dave. We are British, an ancient race, forged in the furnace of affliction, a breed apart, formed into precious jewels by the pressure to survive. We are unique.
We are NOT Europeans. The absurd attempts to join us with the EU is not progressive, it is a shambolic attempt to mate a Lion with a Donkey, the project is doomed.
The only way forward is to break away from the parasitic clutches of the EEC. It may be painful or difficult, but 'Siamese' twins have been succesfully seperated in the past & both have survived & prospered.

6 October 2011 at 11:27  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Preacher spoke 'upliftingly' for this Great Nation to hear. Let the Trumpets exult us and sound an alarm!

To which Ernst sings in response, using his croaky tenor timbre ;

"And call the brave, and only brave, around.
Who listeth, follow: to the field (of this great and pleasant land) again!
Justice with courage is a thousand men."

To plagarize His Grace's words, if he will graciously allow?

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

Why Ernst loves hearing you preach, my fine evangelist!


6 October 2011 at 13:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl: "Another hi-jacked blog."

The article refers to it and the opening comment is all about it. I make a minor comment on the article and we're away again with everyone's favourite hot topic. Of course, the truth is not your favourite topic as you and I well know so it's hardly surprising that you prefer another interpretation to suit yourself. And then you have the bloody cheek to start commenting on the topic yourself! It's like a clown show down here sometimes. :)

6 October 2011 at 13:29  
Blogger non mouse said...

Mr. Preacher @ 11:27 -- Bravo!!!

Now if the idiot neu foreign conquerors and puppets would just unplug their eyes and ears...

Nah ... they're condition's terminal.

6 October 2011 at 14:25  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

non mouse said...

Lovely to see you back old girl, always a delight to hear your comments.

Ernst thought you may have had some mishap.


6 October 2011 at 14:53  
Blogger Jon said...

As someone who is excitedly and nervously starting the adoption process with my partner, I'm rather glad that the social workers that we are dealing with display a more enlightened view than some of the people here.

As Martin Sewell said, many of the kids who have come from homes with which the Roman Catholic church will take no issue (just because the two adults have different genitals) have been subjected to quite horrific circumstances. I challenge anyone to read the details of these children's lives and be unmoved.

For many of you here, though, let's be honest, this issue is nothing to do with the welfare of these children. It's just another opportunity to don your tin foil hat and bemoan the state of the nation. Good luck to you. Indeed, I'm surprised that Cranmer has chosen to open this can of worms again. A thread on a tub-thumping (if detail- light) speech by our PM has been hijacked for one issue mentioned in passing. I have to suspect that he knew that this would happen.

So +1 for what Sam Vega said and thanks to Dan again for a spirited defence in the face of such wilful ignorance and spite.

6 October 2011 at 15:08  
Blogger Oswin said...

As here, this self-same subject promoted a rather spirited debate in my local 'watering hole' last evening. Where, as here, I felt that other subjects were left on the back-burner. A clever Cameronian ploy perhaps?

6 October 2011 at 17:13  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Camoron is a liar and a traitor.

Enough said?

6 October 2011 at 17:51  
Blogger Oswin said...

No, that just about covers it.

6 October 2011 at 18:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Owl (6 October 2011 10:23)

You are of course right that we’re off thread, but worse - the Conservatives have been hijacked ! All those long years in opposition, debating in wine bars; the London types have clearly taken over. They’ve installed a ‘titular’ head (I use this word as he is no more a leader than I am. He’s just first among equals). All his policies have to be cleared with his mates before he can proceed. That’s where the gay marriage project originates from.

A millionaire, someone who has never held a proper job, in charge - Laughable if it was in another country, tragic in your own.

What can we do about it, nothing. His place men and women on the approved list will see to that. The party has been centralised. That, as they say, is that.

But not quite. Where there is a UKIP name on a ballot paper, there is hope. Let us see how far Cameron and friends get when the support they expect every election walks. And walk is the word. The electorate are used to being treated as idiots, but now with gay marriage, he’s managed to go one notch further – to outright contempt.

6 October 2011 at 18:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

And now we come to Jon (6 October 2011 15:08)

Do get off your high horse and spare us the wounded man of principle, if you don’t mind. You don’t much like the criticism of homosexual couples who want to furnish themselves with a ‘family’.

Not surprising really, you are trying to defend the indefensible...

6 October 2011 at 18:22  
Blogger len said...

Cameron: “I will lead you to the Promised Land" So'cast iron 'Dave takes on the mantle of Moses, but the road he has chosen to take us down leads straight into Babylon.
It seems that we have set a course which will end with the inevitable confrontation with the Creator of the Universe.
All Christians can do now is stand at the sidelines and try to preach the Gospel of Life towards those who are sleepwalking towards oblivion.

God pleads through the Gospel and through His Word for people to Choose Life.But if they refuse all warnings and have set themselves on a course of open defiance towards God the eventual outcome is inevitable.
All Christians can do now is stand on the sidelines and shout "turn back" to those who will hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ ,the Gospel of Life.
Man in his arrogance (and indeed ignorance) has decided to 'eat of the knowledge of good and evil'and decide for himself what is 'right' and what is' wrong'and to align his 'morals'to follow his' fallen nature'.God`s intention was for man to have a new nature which was the purpose of Christ`s mission to Earth.
The old nature the 'fallen ' nature was judged at the Cross and is under the sentence of death.

6 October 2011 at 18:29  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len said ...

"All Christians can do now is stand at the sidelines and try to preach the Gospel of Life towards those who are sleepwalking towards oblivion."

No, no, no!

I was raised believing despair was a sin and that Christians should always actively engage with the world. We may not succeed, things may have gone too far, but whilst there is a political system that offers the possibility of change surely we must keep up the fight?


Now the homosexuals adopters want to play the 'poor us' card. They defend exposing vulnerable children to the additional confusion a homosexual lifestyle will inevitably bring by claiming we are heartless. Unbelievable.

6 October 2011 at 18:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


The Inspector has the opinion that playing at happy families is one gay partners attempt to provide some kind of accepted normality to prevent the other going off to the arms of someone else. As of course, homosexual men are wont to do. No longer do they dress in their mothers clothes and try on her high heels, they’re grown up now so it’s on to real flesh and blood children to satisfy their fantasies. Utterly repellent behaviour...

6 October 2011 at 19:12  
Blogger Atlas shrugged said...

OoIG you say

If Gays do have the best interests of parentless children at heart, they could themselves campaign for a change in the law to exclude Catholic Adoption Agencies and others from this sad unjust law. That’s if Gays can put the interests of the welfare of these small children above their own agendas...

I agree with your sentiments however;

By 'Gays,' I hope you really mean 'various establishment funded Gay pressure groups,' for there is a subtle but often infinite difference between the two.

I must admit to not having known very many Gay men, plenty of bi-sexual women you understand, but no more then 8-10 Gay men.

Having said that, I strongly gained the impression from talking to these chaps that they are as varied in there political and social thinking as all other men are. Several of these, where highly active members of The Conservative Party.

It has long since worked like this.

At a very high level decisions are made, for example to deliberately divide society, by promoting minority issues over the needs or wants of the majority.

This establishment policy is then seeded within our universities until a suitable candidate is found to head up certain pressure groups, in this case, so called GAY rights groups.

As much as possible state funding is used, however largish amounts of brown paper covered cash, is used to grease up a few palms, and get the ball rolling as far as office equipment etc are concerned.

This cash is usually 'donated' from a very rich often anonymous individual, which most usually turns out to be someone ultimately involved in the BANKING or financial industry. However not of course without certain reasonably lose strings attached.

These strings are that the group must be selective as to what it represents, and must 'elect' its future leadership, from a list that the donator draws up.

The majority of these pressure groups may be said to be leftist or radical organizations, however they are almost as likely to be rightist, conservative or liberal ones. This depends on the policy which is to be propagated, although as a general rule controlling both sides of all debates, is a usefully wise precaution.

By the establishment also using their ultimate control over both the rightist and leftist media, most especially their absolute control over THE BBC, they sooner or later get their way.

This form of control is not in any way new, indeed if the establishment had not been able to control the direction that democracy took, and now takes, they would never have promoted democracy as a preferential form of government in the first place.

The establishment sometimes tells the people how this is done. using hundreds, if not thousands of books and movies.

One of the most well known of these is Walt Disneys Mary Poppins.

You may recall that that the film had many important sub plots, the most important one being FEMINISM.

Which was pounded by the wives of very rich Bankers, and had the wives of top bank employees as there shock troopers.

You will also note that the only person who saved the unfortunate children from what these days would be termed child neglect, was the magical figure of Many Poppins herself.

However, and this is the real problem, as I hope we all know, magical figures, like for example Spiderman, Superman, Batman or Mary Poppins, do not actually exist.

Get, it?

6 October 2011 at 19:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


You have brought into the proceedings the secret efforts of those who have the money, the influence, who pull the strings. The acceptance of the homosexual in the last 40 years has been nothing if not astonishing. From criminal offence to cause celebre. Such is the power of these shadowy individuals.

The Inspector has nothing against homosexuals who just want to get on with it, so to speak. But there is no end to their demands. There will be a time when a heterosexual couple will announce with pride to the world that their beloved young son / daughter has found ‘happiness’ in the arms of someone of their own gender. Never, never, and thrice, NEVER !!!

And to use innocent children to justify their sham lifestyle. For God’s sake, It’s evil...

6 October 2011 at 19:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ahem, meant to say 'there will NOT be a time'

6 October 2011 at 20:06  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well said, Mr Preacher @ 11.27. Time for the British ship of state to 'turn again for the open sea', to use Churchill's wonderful phrase.

The great host of the English speaking peoples across the oceans stand ready to welcome Britain back into the fold.

6 October 2011 at 21:47  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Bluedog said 6 October 2011 21:47

"Time for the British ship of state to 'turn again for the open sea', to use Churchill's wonderful phrase." May Ernst return the compliment, my charming hound.(If only we would do as he suggested?)

Inspiring phrase, My Blue Hound, simply inspiring! (Ernst loves Sea Symphony by Vaughan Williams..It speaks of our Nation and it's surrounding waters in music)


6 October 2011 at 22:04  
Blogger bluedog said...

The cry to all hands is 'Ready About', Mr Ernst, and while we are on a nautical tack, I do like the cut of your jib!

Your Grace, your communicant compares and contrasts the comfortable words of Dave with the gritty realism of Mervyn King. Could it be that swervin' Mervyn has looked at the collapse of Dexia and thought, 'It's Credit Anstalt v2', I had better issue a storm warning'?

Your communicant fears it is time to shorten sail and prepare for the worst.

6 October 2011 at 22:19  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Hands off Mary Poppins! Was she a feminist? And can it be true she didn't really exist?

6 October 2011 at 22:34  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Atlas Shrugged said 6 October 2011 19:36

Dear girl, do tell what it is you are putting in your pipe?

Ernst's favourite is Ram Rod cigarillos rolled in kentucky Bourbon but if your's can make the pain of the coming double dip more palatable, then old Ernsty may be game to change his baccy!

Ernsty , my bewildering girl.


The establishment sometimes tells the people how this is done. using hundreds, if not thousands of books and movies.

"One of the most well known of these is Walt Disneys Mary Poppins." Praise the Lord you did not mention Chitty Chitty Bang Bang!
Toot Sweets!

Should be more like Atlas Spliffed as a moniker?
Do stub it out or at least Talk to Frank, my girl

6 October 2011 at 23:01  
Blogger Atlas shrugged said...

Have you ever seen Walt Disneys Mary Poppins?

I mean really see it?

Or was you so infatuated with Julie Andrews that the REAL message of the movie completely passed you by?

There were several other sub-plots

Relative wealth and poverty, in turn of the last century London.

Fractional reserve banking, and the long standing perils thereof. ( very here and now, would you not agree?)

Witchcraft, or the devils own work is good for you, and your children. Indeed 'what would you mindless idiots do without it?'( a very common recurring theme in many Disney and other Holly-wood Movies)

Parents on the other hand, are selfish, over ambitious, more then a little stupid and generally uncaring. ( a very common recurring theme in many Disney, and other Holly-wood Movies)

The Early Feminist movement, and what kind of people supported it and financed it. Who were the wives of VERY rich bankers, and the wives of lesser ones who in many cases joined the feminist movement simply to help advance the ambitions of their own husbands.

BTW. Were you aware that the wood from the Holly tree or Hollywood is that which is traditionally used to make magic wands?

6 October 2011 at 23:10  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6 October 2011 at 23:59  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

I'm watching the incoming results in our provincial election (Ontario). The Liberals are leading the Progressive Conservatives by 10 effing points so far. Argh. Four more years of bad economy, taxes, sduty on shopping bags, windmills and whatnots. Most votes aren't in yet, but doesn't look good.

7 October 2011 at 02:50  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

DanJ0 said.5 October 2011 22:01

Twigg asked: "Danjo- I thought you said you were a Mill style Liberal[ on other posts] do you think the 'state' should provide? Isn't that very anti- classical liberal old bean?"

"Mill wasn't a libertarian"

JOHN STUART MILL : concisely opined

J S Mill was a Libertarian based
on the moral position that the paramount value is individual liberty. This
moral position has social, political, and economic implications, all of
which are exhibited in the social philosophy of Mill.

Individual Liberty takes precedence over everything else.
Mill's moral libertarianism is fundamental,
whereas his positions in politics and economics are
derivative, but consistently derivative, from the moral libertarianism.
What is moral libertarianism? The fundamental value is freedom.
Freedom is living according to rules that are self-imposed. This concept
of freedom has two dimensions: (a) it means opposing the imposition
of rules from without (that is, oppression and coercion); and (b) it
means not imposing rules on others (paternalism).
Two things most immediately noticeable about Mill's moral libertarianism is
that it is strikingly reminiscent of Jean-JacquesRousseau's conception of freedom,
and it is clearly incompatible with any theory of man that alleges that
there are any goals or needs more fundamental than the condition of
being free.

Is J S Mill "the saint of liberalism." The distance between Mill and liberalism is most apparent on the issue of freedom, so it is important to spell out the difference.
The traditional liberal definition of freedom, going back to Hobbes
and Locke, is that freedom is the absence of arbitrary external constraint.
It is customary to read Mill's essay On Liberty as a plea for
minimizing newly emerging external constraints such as public opinion
and the general conditions that conspire to induce conformity.
There are some well-known paradoxes generated by the traditional
liberal notion that freedom is the absence of arbitrary external constraint.
This definition, when pressed to its logical limits, leads either
to the cult of self-gratification or to its diametric opposite, totalitarianism.

Mill further observes that liberty can be divided into three types, each of which must be recognized and respected by any free society. First, there is the liberty of thought and opinion. The second type is the liberty of tastes and pursuits, or the freedom to plan our own lives. Third, there is the liberty to join other like-minded individuals for a common purpose that does not hurt anyone. Each of these freedoms negates society’s propensity to compel compliance.

Therefore Mill can be viewed as either
(a) committed to classical liberalism but making too many concessions to modern liberalism or
(b) committed to modern liberalism but retaining too many vestigial traces of classical liberalism or
(c) just plain confused or confusing about which way to go.

Ernst attributes (c) to Mill, as the forerunner of the licentious society and the cult of self-gratification (as Gertrude Himmelfarb does in her book: On Liberty and Liberalism: The Case of John Stuart Mill (1974).'
Mill was a moral libertarian.

You Fabulist (*Chortles*) and Ernst trusts that helps? ;-(

7 October 2011 at 02:57  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Reporting from the latest conservative/Conservative battlefield:

Argh...again. How could we? Results for my riding: Liberal again. Provincially, Libs won, again. We don't know if they'll be majority or minority at this point. I'm shuffling off to bed, cocoa in hand...again.

Over and out.

7 October 2011 at 03:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blofeld, at least credit the source of your text you stole:

Nevertheless, I'm pleased that you took the trouble to google around, even it was just using "John Stuart Mill" and "libertarian" as I think understanding JS Mill is to understand some of the core principles underlying society today.

This bit is quite interesting: "[...] it is clearly incompatible with any theory of man that alleges that are any goals or needs more fundamental than the condition of being free." Is that actually a fair assessment do you think? For instance, is free speech all about freedom or is something else also the goal there? Also, the paragraph about the Harm Principle ... do you think the author has actually made a valid point about that?

I'm quite tempted to strip it down, not least because you have quietly extended the term "libertarian" from my comment, but I doubt there's much point. Bear in mind, Twigg tried to pull me up on the role of the State in adoption services given my claim to JS Mill style liberalism. What's the power of the State there and is paternalism good regarding children even if one thinks it isn't for free adults?

Also, I have said a number of times that I tend towards classical liberalism (i.e. a form of libertarianism), tempered by modern liberalism, so I've been pretty open. I think JS Mill is more or less in that place too.

If you're still inclined to google then try "Isaiah Berlin" and "Two concepts of liberty" next and see how that applies to JS Mill. A modern political situation might be teenagers from lower working class families and places at university in the context of tuition fee debt and their likely views on it.

7 October 2011 at 06:02  
Blogger len said...

In the World but not OF the World?.This is the role of Christians.

'The World' has entered the 'church', Politics, and our economy, in fact 'the 'World system' which is totally corrupted and in rebellion against God(as it was in the system devised by Nimrod) and corrupts everything it touches, if you are OF 'the World' then you are an enemy of God.

Babylon is a Religious,Economical, and Political System totally opposed to God.
The' World system' based on greed, lust for power,position, and wealth is destined for God`s judgement(that is why God says" come out of her MY people"God is calling HIS people out of the World system so the do NOT get judged along with Her)

7 October 2011 at 08:05  
Blogger len said...

One last thought ,
All those within 'Babylon' who are not of the Spirit of God will NOT heed the warnings to "Come out of Her" They will stay in because of rebellion against God, in defiance of His Word, and because they did NOT "Have a love of the Truth".
When God`s judgement falls on Babylon it will do so with total justice because warnings(aplenty) have been given.

7 October 2011 at 08:16  
Blogger Roy said...


Everyone is a sinner and although a couple "living in sin" are disobeying one aspect of Christian teaching they are at least a MAN AND A WOMAN. A pair of practising homosexuals not only disobey Christian teaching they are obviously NOT a man AND a woman.

Why does that need to be explained to you? You have posted lots of comments on this thread. Obviously you are far more concerned by perceived insults to homosexuals than you are by children without parents being denied a natural family structure.

The kind of people in favour of gay adoption are the same kind of people who put all sorts of obstacles in the way of normal heterosexual couples adopting, e.g. they are the wrong race, overweight, smoke a cigar on special occasions, or hold politically incorrect views.

7 October 2011 at 08:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy: "Why does that need to be explained to you?"

I'm not sure what to make of that. Life in a care home for a child is not a natural family structure either. I don't need the structure explaining, just why it is a necessary criterion in your mind, especially given the adoption agency website details about single parenting that I gave out. Other structures are quite probably good enough as far as I am concerned.

"The kind of people in favour of gay adoption are the same kind of people [...]"

In principle, I don't have a problem with mixed race couples adopting or with parents of one race adopting the child of another. Cigar-smokers don't worry me. Overweight people don't in principle either although I think any parents who have very overweight kids through over-eating are committing a form of child abuse. As such, I reject your characterisation and its purpose.

There's a wider issue in the role of the State in legitimising a particular adoption. It's essentially operating in loco parentis to my mind and therefore it is responsible for its decisions and consequences. As such, I think it is not unreasonable to apply strict criteria for selection even though there are clearly quite poor parents around who are still looking after their own children. Afterall, a child in the care system has already suffered disadvantage.

7 October 2011 at 10:23  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

David Cameron may not have forced Catholic adoption agencies to close but he will never lift a finger to let them open again whilst he has his current proclivities!

7 October 2011 at 10:29  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

The little mercies upon (nearly) final vote count: Ontario's Libs have a minority gov't this time around and our Conservatives picked up 12 more seats. Still, 6 months ago it looked like a slam-dunk for us. Argh. Avi not happy.

7 October 2011 at 10:59  
Blogger Jon said...

Inspector - you're wrong. My mum's very proud of me and my partner. So is my granny. And my great aunt. And all of my Aunts, Uncles and Cousins. For that matter, so is his mother. Perhaps it's time you got out more? Maybe if you stopped referring to yourself in the third person, people wouldn't cross the street to avoid you?

The irony of your apparent desire to impose your version of the nuclear family on children in care, whilst railing against the perceived "imposition" of homosexual parents would be quite amusing were it not so weird. I'm not on a high horse and I'm not asking for sympathy for me. I'm content and secure in my relationship. We have a lot of love to give, and have built a lovely home and since we're unable to have kids ourselves, we're going to try this way.

The idea that you would deprive a child of the opportunity to grow up in a loving household with two parents and would condemn so many to the care system because you don't like the relationship of those applying speaks volumes for the kind of person you must be. I'm glad you're not in my family!

7 October 2011 at 13:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


The Inspector is delighted you and your partner have your families’ acceptance. Close family ties are of such importance. However, even you must admit that you have it comparatively comfortable in that respect – disappointment and rejection features all too often. You see, the Inspector would like to think he’s a decent fellow, and really is happy for you – but he does strongly disapprove of gay marriage and gay adoption, for they can only be watery imitations of something much greater. In the case of adoption, you really will be asking a lot from the child. To get his/her head round the relationship for a start, something none of their friends will have experience of, and dare it be said, be worried about.

Gay couples were well into the show dog world at one time, no doubt still are. Afghan hounds being a particular favourite. Plenty of opportunity to meet like-minded others. (As an alternative to adoption…)

7 October 2011 at 17:24  
Blogger Jon said...

Hi Inspector,

Hand on heart - you've touched on one of the only issues that matters for me in this process - whether the nature of our relationship will cause trouble for any child that we may be lucky enough to adopt. If we thought that this was the case, we wouldn't hesitate to drop out of the process. We've given it a lot of thought, and we've done our research. You can see some of it collated on Stonewall's website's page about parenting (I'm not sure how HG feels about linking out or I would).

Admittedly, since the research is on Stonewall's website you'll quite understandably believe it's biased, but it was carried out by Cambridge Uni and builds on a lot of research that they have collated on the relevant page, and there are apparently strong international correlations too.

The long and short of it was that kids growing up in households with two dads don't do any better or worse than those with a mum and a dad. Kids growing up in a house with two mums seem to out-perform more conventional families on several measures. Kids didn't seem to regard it as an issue and were perfectly capable of considering two dads as normal. For instance, my godson doesn't think my relationship strange at all and he's 4.

I don't accept that gay relationships have to be watered down anything. I grew up with a loving mother and father, and four loving grandparents, all of whom stayed together, and so I know what a healthy heterosexual marriage looks like and I really hope that we can provide a foundation as strong. I wouldn't be doing this if that hope wasn't real and honest.

But pre-judging the strength of a relationship based upon gender was my issue with your writing. I can't speak for the social work profession as a whole, but the ones we have been dealing with have been direct, intrusive and careful so far - exactly what you'd hope from adults charged with a role as important as theirs. It's their job to make sure that we're strong enough, committed to one another, have educated ourselves and have supportive families and friends to help us out when it gets tough. They seem to do so on criteria which they apply to every couple regardless of their sexual preference.

I've got no wider agenda. I'm not seeking to undermine western democracy or the capitalist way (I enjoy one and profit handsomely from the other) or even the Church (that house is more than capable of dividing itself.)

As to your last point, I know friends who are on the show dogs circuit, but I'm allergic to dogs, and not a huge fan of the idea to be honest!

I'm not really comfortable using personal experience to argue a point, to be honest. DanJ0's arguments are all the more compelling for their universality for me. But this has touched on something I'm doing and so I thought I'd share.

Back to wiser heads than mine!

7 October 2011 at 17:59  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Well, there you go, Inspector, almost, but for an allergy....

Have a good a weekend, everyone.

7 October 2011 at 18:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Your account read and considered. You seem to have done your homework and the Inspector wishes you well. You are also obviously a professional and able to provide the best. Reassuringly, the authorities seem to be taking no chances – a recent history of social workers being personally held to account by the media and investigating bodies, should anything go wrong, has seen to that.

Any child allocated to you will have hit the jackpot, so to speak. But in principle, the Inspector remains against gay adoption and marriage, as per the church’s teaching.

Postscript. If it’s an unnamed black lad, how about ‘Inspector’ as a first name (seriously, great street cred possibilty there...)

7 October 2011 at 18:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


The Inspector would one day like a dog for himself, or even better, a woman with a dog, for himself...

Jack Russell would be good...

7 October 2011 at 18:41  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len droned ...
"The' World system' based on greed, lust for power,position, and wealth is destined for God`s judgement(that is why God says" come out of her MY people"God is calling HIS people out of the World system so the do NOT get judged along with Her)"

Yes, it's called Capitalism and, strange to tell, it is based on the 'Protestant Ethic' that sprang from? Yes, that's right, the Reformation.

There is an alternative 'Christian Ethic' that Roman Catholicism teaches but that is regarded as a facist, religio-political agenda of Rome by her seperated brethen.

7 October 2011 at 20:29  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Your comments to Jon brought to mind Jesus' comment to the crowds about John the Baptist:

"What went you out into the desert to see? A reed shaken with the wind?"

Some things one must take a stand on and this is one.

7 October 2011 at 20:39  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

See, Inspector, your words today bring joy, comfort and elation to so many. Me, I marvel at how you manage to fly them over so many heads. A touching suggestion, passing on your name, btw. You not only have a soft heart, but you keep your head during maudlin moments by wisely planning for your namesake's street creds as well. Over here, in our hoods, it would be pronounced "In'petter." Easier to lure a young lady with a Jack Russel already at your side, though. But not with In'petter along.

7 October 2011 at 21:27  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Not sure if Mr Avi wilfully misinterpreted my comment or if he is using satire.

Ask yourself Inspector- if it really were your biological child and not a namesake, would you rest easy at night?

It is not just 'Church teaching' that is against homosexual 'marriage' and adoption. Common reason is opposed to these recent dogmas of 'diversity'.

Beware the educated, articulate smooth talker who tells you want you want to hear, using the language of 'scientific research' and concepts borrowed from heterosexual family life.

However, read his words more closely.

My mum's very proud of me and my partner. So is my granny. And my great aunt ... so is his mother."

Spot who is missing from this list of pleased family members?

I'm content and secure in my relationship. We have a lot of love to give, and have built a lovely home and since we're unable to have kids ourselves, we're going to try this way."

We're comfortable, settled, have a lot of love to give and we want a child and so we'll give this route a go.

No doubt his mummy, granny and auntie will coo with pleasure too.

7 October 2011 at 22:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


You are of course correct, but for all his stern appearance, growling noise and old fashioned traditions, he remains a big soft hearted old Inspector.

However, he did say that But in principle, the Inspector remains against gay adoption and marriage, as per the church’s teaching.

And that’s in the spirit of Christ. When Jesus spoke to the prostitute, he told her to ‘sin no more’. He didn’t take steps to keep her off the game. But in principle he would probably have supported a Roman initiative to ban prostitution. In other words, you voice your displeasure, but unless the law is there banning gay adoption, what can you do but make the best of the way things turn out...

7 October 2011 at 23:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


On the subject of gay acceptance, the Inspector used to wonder at how readily women are able to do this. Even to the point of a very close personal relationship that they would not dream of having with a heterosexual man other than their husband. He offers this observation. If a young man is involved, the woman with her nurturing nature is sympathetic to the boy. With an older man, the woman knows he will not attempt to ride her.

7 October 2011 at 23:13  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


You are a good soul. Like many, your compassion and empathy can lower your guard. Read Genesis again to understand the techniques of subtle persuasion.

What do you think the impact of Christs words on the adultress were? A direct encounter with the Son of God who tells you to "sin no more" would surely transform one?

Yes it is the country's law but not God's law. We should comply as far as we can with the law of the land, but as Christians we must hold onto our principles, keep putting our case and not get drawn into the secular mindset.

7 October 2011 at 23:23  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Women especially enjoy the company of the more 'camp' homosexuals and, if you watch closely, you'll notice a non-sexual flirtation going on. It is a strange phenomena indeed. If I were still an unrepentant 'jack the lad' I might just consider it a good seduction technigue!

Generally 'men' are not good at talking about emotions and feelings. And as for fashion and make-up and having a good old gossip! Have you not noticed the arrival of the 'metro-sexual' male in the face of changing expectations on the 'modern man'? We're all supposed to express our 'feminine side' these days and be less 'male'.

7 October 2011 at 23:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


You are a hard uncompromising man. That is not a slur it should be added, but a description of an ability to carry out your convictions to the letter. The Inspector takes in the view of all sides and pronounces his findings. In other words, he’s hard wired to be a compromiser. And of course, history is littered with disastrous examples of compromise, so we need people like you to fight his corner to the end. Your stance suits your personality, his stance suits the Inspector's. Fortunately, Christianity encompasses us both, and all who wish it.

7 October 2011 at 23:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


A woman’s intuition tells her that the campest of men are good company, thanks to their non masculine ability of super communication. The Inspector understands they can even touch the woman’s breast in mid flow, and not be arrested for it. As for using the technique if you were a single man, forget it. Women don’t go round in twos, threes and fours for nothing. they’re ready to pull a man to the ground if he tries anything on one of them, and go for the kill. An example of pre-historic behaviour alive and well today.

The so called metro-male is the result of some women not prepared to date any man who does not posses movie star looks. To borrow a phrase from the 1970s, ‘f__k em’. Spending good beer money on facials, gyms and manicures (never realised how important a man’s fingernails are), well, it’s just not on...

7 October 2011 at 23:59  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Just don't run for public office or sit on an adoption panel!

Besides, parenthood has taught me not to let my heart rule my head.

"Please daddy is it okay if I ...?"
"But others are doing it."
"Daddy, you're so mean"
"I'm going to ask mummy."

I'm not cold hearted - just old fashioned too. You start from the position homosexuals are born and so somehow this makes their behaviour more acceptable and tolerable.

Sin is sin, friend, and it spreads like a virus.

8 October 2011 at 00:00  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Women are slowly feminising the male gender. Today they out perform boys at school, are earning more in the lower socio-economic classes and are training their men to be 'house husbands'.

I read a book in the 1970's called 'The Lesbian Nation'. It's all coming true. Soon men will not even be needed for breeding purposes.

8 October 2011 at 00:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


The Inspector is fortunate to earn his corn relying on ‘National Regulations’ (but he’s not saying in what field he works !!) so he’s spared ‘difficult’ adjudications.

Girls were out performing boys when the Inspector was at school. But when the girls were studying hard, the Inspector was playing cricket. And what’s more, the bosses (men at the time) knew this because they were doing exactly the same when they were young.

The professional woman is the biggest reason for house husbands. Even woman with just a couple of GCSEs are now calling themselves professional. Ridiculous state of affairs, and these women often sport tattoos to prove their lack of worth.

The Inspector has considered all of this and the threat to manhood. He has a simple solution - outlaw vibrators.

8 October 2011 at 00:31  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Pray tell, what is a 'vibrator'?


8 October 2011 at 01:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


The Inspector has never seen a vibrator ’in the flesh’ so to speak (...hmmm, could be on dodgy ground here, might have to rewrite that first sentence...), but understands it’s a very necessary device for women who want to go it alone in life, including having children, without a man. This of course would include a substantial amount of benefit sponging. Not in God’s plan of a man for every women.

A curse upon them, sir...

8 October 2011 at 12:29  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...



And I thought it had something to do with digging up roads.

8 October 2011 at 12:36  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Inspector sorry to butt in but it was a man who founded the now booming chain of Ann Summers shops in 1970. In swinging London from whence the offending objects you mention became so popular. Founded by a man, Caborn Waterfield, for the pleasure of men but became part of the feminist movements and the sexual revolution.

I wouldn't advise you visit a branch at your age all that raunchy apparatus might bring on a funny turn, and your monocle would steam up at the outfits that are offered for adult entertainment these days.

We've had the sexual revolution and are now well into the gay/lesbian revolution and on the brink of the transexual/bisexual/gender bending revolution which is beginning to take hold. Parent 1 and Parent 2 on passports is outrageous. It's worrying as what after that will they be demanding? The hermaphrodite revolution?!!! Will humans all be grown in the lab or die out all together due to too many chemicals and meddling with the DNA? God will find a way to punish those that are straying too far from what is healthy and normal just like Saturn castrated Uranus for continuing to create such evil and hideous monsters as children. He threw the severed genitals into the sea where upon Aphrodite arose.

8 October 2011 at 13:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Good grief, the Inspector always thought a feisty housewife ‘Ann Summers’ created the chain. And you are right, he won't set foot into one of their outlets; indeed he has to avert his eyes when he walks past one, lest the passion of his flesh be aroused.

He has never seen a vibrator but did hear of a woman who wished to purchase one at ‘Ann Summers’. On asking the sales assistant, she was directed to a wall where they were displayed. She asked if she could have a look at the red one towards the bottom, only to be told that that was actually the store fire extinguisher....

As for parent 1 and parent 2 and the removal of genders from humanity, the Inspector comforts himself that those responsible will eventually get what’s coming to them, if not in this world, then the next.

8 October 2011 at 14:07  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Marie 1797 said ...

"Saturn castrated Uranus for continuing to create such evil and hideous monsters as children. He threw the severed genitals into the sea where upon Aphrodite arose."

Those Greeks certainly knew what they were talking about and didn't they just have the metaphors to make one sit-up and pay attention!

It's a sign of our times that Ann Summers is so 'respectable' these days. One on every High Street and I dare say profits are booming.

8 October 2011 at 14:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Surely people use Lovehoney these days? Ann Summers is so passé.

8 October 2011 at 17:11  
Blogger len said...


Please don`t take Dodo down that route again!.

8 October 2011 at 17:40  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...


You asked, "Not sure if Mr Avi wilfully misinterpreted my comment or if he is using satire." Not at all about your comment or your conversation with the Inspector. I was thinking of the Inspector's ability to speak sweetly, while thrusting hilarious insults masked as irrelevant babble. For example, try summarizing into one expression, or translating into the street vernacular his avancular advice about the Afghans. And please drop the Mr.

9 October 2011 at 06:38  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo, sorry to disappoint you. Your desperate longing for a peg to hang my 'objective disorder' on got the better of you didn't it?

My partner's father is now dead but accepted me with open arms. My father sadly passed away before I could tell him he had a mo for a son. My mother's pretty confident that he knew already and would have been proud regardless.

Unless you'd like to stoop any lower, your argument has rather run it's course.

Inspector, thank you for your good wishes!

9 October 2011 at 08:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Jon: "Dodo, sorry to disappoint you. Your desperate longing for a peg to hang my 'objective disorder' on got the better of you didn't it?"

Welcome to the Dodo.

Good luck with the adoption, it sounds like you'll provide a fine home and upbringing from your words here.

When I was younger, I had doubts on whether same sex couples should adoption. I worried for the most part on whether it would cause problems for the child at school. However, I've come to the opinion that children will be teased at school for all sorts of things, including simply having ginger hair, and this is no different ie. it's just part of life and growing up.

In fact, the more people who do it the more accepted and unremarkable it will be. I have some friends on facebook who adopted some years ago and their young teenager is doing well and is very comfortable with it all. In fact, she's more balanced and tolerant of difference of any sort than lots of teenagers in so-called 'nuclear families' I see. It's the supportive, loving home bit that really, really matters.

9 October 2011 at 10:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Such kind words from you, and greatly appreciated. The Inspector has long been aware that the best way to get his often serious points across is to accompany then with humour. He’s a particular enthusiast of the back handed compliment. Indeed, his favourite humour is Jewish American which has had the Inspector howling and rolling around on the floor, thumping the carpet (cf British sitcoms, urrrgh).

As for you gay types, the Inspector is learning more about you from this site. For example, he didn’t realise you can have a genuine urge to nest. It’s the young gay righters you see, coming across as hedonistic irresponsibles. But in the cause of acceptance, he must advise against gay marriage, which will set acceptance back some years.

Your uncle Dodo isn’t going to approve at what I’ve said, but there you go, and as soon as he’s back from foraging, Jon can expect a response. But you types didn’t ask to be born gay (...did you, by chance ?...)

In the end it’s all for God, Queen and Empire. Carry on...

9 October 2011 at 13:59  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

A pleasure, Inspector, I enjoy being entertained....provided I'm not in the rifle scope, as it were. I'm also playing a little game of placing bets with myself to see if I can guess who's likely to furrow his brows at one of your exchanges of pleasantries to say, "Hey, wait a minute, did he just tell me to go and...?"

9 October 2011 at 15:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi, the Inspector is still learning his craft. It was only on a visit to an old school friend and his wife in the Lake District of the UK (...absolutely beautiful area, worth a google...) this summer that he ‘had a go’ on his PC there. A bit of divine guidance, and the Archbishop’s site was suddenly there. On his return, he purchased a laptop (...never had the www at home before, doing it at work was enough...). All that was missing was his posting style. Fortunately, IG shares his mind with his Edwardian grandfather (...alas, he was deceased by a year or two by the time IG arrived in the world, but that didn’t stop him coming back...), so it’s his grandfather’s take on the world you get. All in all, here’s hoping IG hasn’t peaked, because truth and murder will out !! (...this post to conclude with ‘Fight the Good Fight’...)

9 October 2011 at 16:23  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


So have you no male family members to share your experiment in faux family life with? No brothers, uncles or cousins to cite as happy for you in your desire to adopt? No suitable hetrosexual role models may be a barrier to your final approval as an adopter.


You compare the taunting over ginger hair with the bullying that can be anticipated because of being the child of two homosexual men? You do occupy a strange universe!


See what your understanding has gone and done? You've encouraged these men in their quest to grab a child so they can play at mummy and daddy - or is it daddy and daddy?

9 October 2011 at 17:02  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...


Sounds like you and I are both relative newbies at His Grace's table, recent, but hopefully industrious and tame enough to deserve seats above the salt, closer to the better flagons of wine.

Channeling an Edwardian grandfather works well for you; my paternal grandfather, whom I remember quite well, as he lived to almost 100, was a son of an early Anarchist and became a co-founder of the communist party in a Nazi-occupied European country. Channeling his theses on the inevitable victory of the International wouldn't work too well nowadays. I know little of my maternal grandfather, as he owned a restaurant at which he worked in himself, looked down on Communists and other trouble-makers and steered his children towards careers in engineering and medicine.

The Lake District is, truly, brethtaking. I see you have little bumps resembling mountains, in some mays like our Ontario. I do appreciate our Canadian wilderness, but I have always preferred the smaller-scaled European landscape, with its human imprints going back for millenia. But since I can get all the wilderness I want here, on vacations, as well as frequently driving through unbelievably desolate parts, I'm still gung-ho for my own Edwardian fantasy since childhood, the houseboat trip along the route of Jerome's fictional Three Men and A Boat. One day, one day...

9 October 2011 at 17:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


If for one second you think Jon and other have been influenced to go ahead with gay adoption from what the Inspector has commented, then he does ask you to reconsider. If you remember it was Jon who told us that he had already taken the initial steps towards adoption (see 6 October 2011 15:08). The Inspector is not going to reiterate his objections to gay adoption; be content he has them, and frankly would like the law repealed and to return to how things were.

We must now look at the positive side. It’s unlikely gay adoption will ever be considered ‘normal’ in the eyes of the public, and one can take it social workers will be highly selective as to whom they will be prepared to offer it. As previously stated, the public naming of these people when / if things go wrong will ensure that. The Inspector would not be surprised if the only ‘couples’ that will be considered are professionals in long term stable relationships. The well-known transitory nature of gay relationships as a rule is going to work against large scale gay adoption.

The Inspector is therefore satisfied that unpleasant homosexuals with attitude will be screened out. The Inspector would also point out that lesbians seem to manage quite well in setting up artificial families courtesy turkey basters. He would suggest that active and if necessary, intrusive monitoring be extended to these setups if not already in place.

9 October 2011 at 17:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi, as you say a European wilderness is of course much smaller. The Inspector, not appreciative of crowds, is often out walking alone when he can. He always hopes that if misfortune occurs, a fall or foot down a rabbit hole, he’ll be found after a few hours, rather than his remains, if any, years later in a real wilderness...

9 October 2011 at 18:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You compare the taunting over ginger hair with the bullying that can be anticipated because of being the child of two homosexual men?"


"You do occupy a strange universe!"

So says a so-called Catholic. Lol.

9 October 2011 at 20:11  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Good man. Being of a generous spirit and having understanding are fine qualities and I admire them in you.

However, I will never see a positive side to legitimising homosexual relationships in the public sphere through 'marriage' and now adoption (they are not 'gay' -do not let them usurp this fine word).

Just remember, moral relativism creeps in when we lose sight of the bigger picture and focus on the feelings of individuals.

10 October 2011 at 00:51  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I agree about keeping feelings out and preserving a heterosexual normal healthy society, BUT, and I can't swallow this, I've just turned on the TV where the housewives' favourite program “This Morning” interviewers were interviewing a pair of gender benders and promoting the docu on BBC3 this eve about two young people born as girls but now living as gay men.

Apparently the program is about dispelling prejudices and what they are going through physically and mentally. We are being brainwashed and forced into accepting all these deviants and abnormalities as the norm. Or are the program makers and TV stations deliberately highlighting and sensationalising these deviants of the norm to improve ratings? We are becoming a sick nation.

10 October 2011 at 12:02  
Blogger Jon said...

Dan - I worried about the teasing issue too and was previously ambivalent about gay adoption, but the more I read, the more I think that a loving home is crucial. You're right about Dodo's arguments too - they're oddly cruel. For instance his insistence that we don't focus on the feelings of individuals in order to avoid moral relativism. This would seem to lead us into a mentality in which placing children quickly to avoid the expense of care is more important than placing them correctly to avoid emotional harm - which is at odds with his stated aims (but not, I hazard his real ones).

Dodo - yes, I have two brothers and my partner has a brother. All of them are supportive and prepared to act as referees for our application. If you're going to keep resting your argument on your suppositions about my family, you're going to lose, I'm afraid. But anyway, that's as much of my private life as you're going to get.

Social workers (who are more concerned about any child we may get placed with) actually seem more interested in any female role models we may be able to give our child exposure to, since we're both blokes.

10 October 2011 at 12:33  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Jon said ...

"Dodo - yes, I have two brothers and my partner has a brother. All of them are supportive and prepared to act as referees for our application."

Strange you ommitted to mention them earlier then. And yes, I dare say the social workers might be concerned about female role models but, persomnally, I'd be more worried about the presence of appropriate hetrosexual male role model. Will you be kissing and cuddling in front of the child? Inviting him or her into your bedroom on Christmas morning?

How can you seriously believe it is a helpful move to expose a child to your lifestyle? Stop pretending it is for the child's sake. That's nonsense. It's driven by your own selfish needs - admit it.

11 October 2011 at 02:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Stop pretending it is for the child's sake. That's nonsense. It's driven by your own selfish needs - admit it."

The motives are almost certainly the same as for straight adoption: a combination of many things. Social workers are not looking for completely altruistic people, they're looking for stable, loving, supportive homes so that children don't have to grow up in rather less than ideal institutions like Catholic childrens homes.

11 October 2011 at 06:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

And Dodo, you're a vile piece of shit for what you're doing here.

11 October 2011 at 06:14  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Now, now. Just telling it the way it is - unnatural and unhelpful. A couple of educated, middle calss guys looking to play happy families at the expense of an innocent child. They know the 'talk', have read the literature and no doubt will be approved by the PC brigade in the local authority.

If you find this offensive just think what any child placed with this homosexual couple will have to suffer. When they can marry they may even allow him or her to be a bridesmaid.

It's gross.

20 October 2011 at 00:17  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older