Tuesday, July 17, 2012

What is this obsession with unity?

All political parties in a liberal democracy are coalitions of the disparate, if not the diverse, come together to agree upon a broad philosophy of government. Prior to the 19th century, politics was exercised by independent MPs who grouped informally according to type or temperament. It was only during the course of that century that these social networks evolved into what may be considered political parties.

The present Conservative Party was born out of 18th-century Tory-Whig divisions, and still contains staunch defenders of both traditions: it is the 'broad church' gathering that permits the likes of Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell to dwell under the same tent as Kenneth Clarke, or Margaret Thatcher with Ted Heath. It wasn't until 1912 that the Conservative Party merged with the Liberal Unionist Party and formally became The Conservative and Unionist Party. This year is, in fact, the centennial celebration of that union and the birth of the modern party (but don't expect any celebration or commemoration).

And the present-day Liberal Democrats are a fusion of Gladstonian Liberals (there are still a few) with those who are Social Democrat in disposition. There is an ever-present tension between the social liberals and the economic liberals (often termed 'Orange-bookers'), which permits Whig-Radicals like David Laws to break bread with moderate Socialists like Shirley Williams.

Both the Conservative and Liberal traditions embrace the top-down authoritarians and bottom-up libertarians. They both contain their reforming and conserving elements, held perpetually in tension, with diverse views on social mobility, economic liberalism, and overseas intervention, not to mention religion and secularism.

If, therefore, political parties are themselves fragile coalitions of the disparate, it stands to reason that the present Coalition Government, forged out of two already-fragmented parties, will itself be fractured across innumerable policy areas, though agreed on broad economic strategy and most of the reforms being implemented on education and welfare. Division, distrust and unsociability belie outward shows of unity and camaraderie.

This being the case, it would assist if the top-down Tory types would stop demanding that the bottom-up Whiggish element should submit to their authoritarian disposition and conform to a uniform agenda. If the liberals and conservatives in both parties bothered to sit down and listen to each other instead of bawling and bullying in the corridors of Westminster, we might just get some strategic policy direction and coherent philosophy.

But that's the grown-up approach.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What is this obsession with unity?"

Unity is a Christian value.

Shame that most of you forgot that and do nothing but create division.

Read your "good" book now and a gain.

You might learn something.

17 July 2012 at 09:52  
Blogger Naomi King said...

What happens when a society loses faith and turns to idolatry?

God or Nihilism ?

Behind radical feminism, same-sex marriage, the androgyny theme, gay pride, and the overall pattern of degeneration at all levels of society throughout Christian America and the West lies a revamped international neo-pagan revolution. It disguises itself as multiculturalism and political correctness. secularism, pornography, female and male promiscuity, equality, easy divorce, open borders, extreme sex education, abortion, gay pride, same-sex marriage, androgyny, speech codes, approval of children being born out of wedlock, the wreckage of the traditional family, and ultimately hate crime laws. It is pagan based.

17 July 2012 at 09:55  
Blogger Naomi King said...

How Nihilism happens

1 The first order of business is to 'exorcise' God, Creator of the Universe from all public and private life. Secularism is the order of the day with a 'separation of church and state' for political correctness and equality's sake and so as "not to offend".

2 Abolish the 'oppressive' traditional family comes next. Universal moral law is tossed aside, wives and mothers are forced to work because of the cost of housing and this is sold as a virtue not a vice, female and male promiscuity is encouraged, abortions made free, marriage is actively discouraged, children are encouraged out of wedlock and divorces attained without difficulty. Catastrophe ensues.

3 Leading politicians and the influencing classes regard the family with distain. This creates an atmosphere of torment, disgust, and disillusionment that pervades sex relations, which causes chaos, uncertainty, and tragedy, abortions cover all cities and towns with shame. Parents are increasingly marginalized and terrorized.

4 Hapless children have to be liberated from their 'oppressive' families. This means ideologically taking control of schools and filling the heads of children with worthless radical feminism, same-sex marriage, the androgyny theme, multiculturalism, diversity, tolerance, safe schools/safe sex, same-sex marriage, 'gay' rights, choice, propaganda and perverse 'sex education.' They are told God is dead and or irrelevant and that they are evolved from fish.

5 Children are psychologically (spiritually) manipulated into not only turning against their own family's authority, but also into spying upon them as well. The consequences of this evil are enormous. Families and culture is devastated and children’s lives were destroyed as the became child rapists, murderers, thieves, bullies, and outright sociopaths.

6 'Equality' (sameness) is declared between "natural intercourse" and the paraphilias, including sodomy. Legislation treats all these gender-bending deviations as the same as so-called 'natural intercourse'. Because all of the preceding is naturally abhorrent to people, draconian hate crime laws and speech codes are legislated to enforce conformity and compliance. Children are slowly but surely coming under control of the 'global village' and being atheitized and sexualised.

7 Familial and cultural suicide continues with a relentlessly brutal assault on Christians, Orthodox Jews, conservatives, the military, parents, and straight males (particularly white males) in which all are marginalized, psychologically bullied and targeted as "homophobes, bigots, racists, fascists, intolerant, divisive, weak and mentally ill,"

8 Failure of social order and economy. Like falling dominoes, the collapsing family leads to the fall of social order, culture, and then the economy, unleashing a tidal wave of crime, corruption, sexual debauchery, and chaos.

9 Strong leaders, usually Godless, are called for (tyrants) to take power and take steps to restore order. Marshal law and misery ensues. Christianity goes underground.

10 Birth rates plummet below replacement level (except amongst people with faith) and the society becomes overburdened with elderly. Suicide and mortality rates increase. Social structure further collapses as, at best, immigrants come in to supply healthy workforce which further de-stablises by bringing with them different religions, values and cultures or at worst, low birth rates and emigration of the remaining young cause depopulation, weakness and societal collapse.

17 July 2012 at 09:56  
Blogger Preacher said...

It was interesting to see Clegg & Cameron together yesterday. They appeared joined at the hip & it was clear there was a mistrust & a struggle for supremacy going on.
This two headed monster is a hybrid & un-natural it will blow sooner or later, we've already heard the warning rumblings.
The inevitable will happen, when the opposing pressure becomes too great an Earthquake occurs.
Really it's purely a Hollywood marriage,- "The media have blown everything out of proportion, we are as much in love as when we first met."--- Two Weeks later DIVORCE!.

'Can two walk together unless they be agreed?'.

17 July 2012 at 10:04  
Blogger bradypus said...

It is all to do with the modern idol of "Consistency" and we all know that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds adored by little statesmen, philosophers and Divines" ( Ralph Waldo Emerson)

17 July 2012 at 10:30  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

@Naomi King - Benefit of the doubt being given here, but how does what you have posted link to what His Grace has said?

On topic - The interesting thing for me is what we had before political parties, which was a constant attempt at coalition to get a majority to back each matter before parliament. Personally I would love to see a return to this. It would remove party politics straight away, would make MPs stand up for what they believe in a lot more and would, hopefully, make parliament far more representative of the country than it currently is (and thus the laws passed would tend to follow in the same way).

17 July 2012 at 10:33  
Blogger Naomi King said...

It links because we have a failed governing elite who have lost faith in God.

17 July 2012 at 10:47  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Not only have they lost faith in God but they have lost faith in freedom of speech too. And when I say a ruling elite I do of course mean the "United" pair on the top of this blog, Messrs Cameron and Clegg.

The manipulation of public opinion through the curtailing of free speech is exactly what we would expect from a fascist or Communist regime but I though it would have no place in modern Britain.

Parliament was assured, on the record, that homosexual equality measures would never result in curtailing the freedom to say that homosexual acts were wrong, yet now we have reached a stage where a conference aimed at nothing more than preserving the legal uniqueness of traditional marriage is regarded as unacceptable.

The QE2 centre vetted and rejected the views of its customers The Coalition 4 Marriage to hold a conference there. A society where only those who agree with the state's view about something are free to be heard does not even begin to offer liberty of expression and nor does one where freedom of assembly is restricted to those of prevailing orthodoxy.

And when did homosexual marriage become the "prevailing orthodoxy" ? Was it not with the "Uniting" of Cameron and Clegg ? It is possible to believe that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and that civil partnerships are wonderful and also to believe nevertheless that marriage should not be re-defined. Indeed that is the position of many gays. Yet now even that limited resistance is deemed beyond the pale.

God or Neo-Pagan Nihilism ? Is it not time to break up this same sex marriage of convenience between Liberals and Conservative (certainly Lynne Featherstone seems to be a powerhouse behind the current decent into immorality, homosexual "marriage" and chaos "mutilation of the House of Lords") and find a for a new leader of the Conservative Party ?

17 July 2012 at 11:21  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

And what has all of that got to do with the factional nature of political parties and the factional nature of the coalition?

17 July 2012 at 11:42  
Blogger Albert said...

An interesting commment in the Telegraph here:


Dave is a uniquely bad leader of the Conservatives. He has managed to alienate not only his core vote, but even his own "on the ground" party troops, without attracting anyone new.

The only conclusion anyone can draw is that he doesn't even know his own people, let alone the country.

Personally, I think it would be good if the Tory vote were split with UKIP next time around, to let Labour in. It might be painful in the short term, but it might enable the Tories to get their act together in the long-term.

17 July 2012 at 11:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The coalition is giving us the worst of both Worlds.

The electorate didn`t trust either of them to run the Country (and rightly so)
'The Country' seems to be trailing a poor last as these politicians push for their own personal agendas a bit like Nero 'fiddling' whilst Rome burns.

17 July 2012 at 12:02  
Blogger bluedog said...

Naomi King @ 11.21, this communicant cannot be persuaded that the problems facing the House of Lords are the fault of Lynne Featherlight.

Blame HH Asquith and Tony Blair for the mutilation of the Lords. Blame the current Conservative backbench for a complete lack of imagination in not thinking of a constructive alternative proposal to that put forward by Clegg.

Sadly it seems to be beyond the capacity of the British political class to join up the constitutional dots. Step one is a devolved English parliament so that all constituent nations of the United Kingdom are on an equal footing. Step two is to convert the Lords into an elected senate that represents these British nations, thus federalising the United Kingdom along the lines of Spain, or the USA, or Australia, or Canada. Very easy and almost certainly the mechanism necessary to keep Scotland in the Union and to facilitate the return of Ireland, should the Irish people so wish.

There are literally hundreds of years of precedents in running federal democracies and why no member of the British political elite can apparently understand and champion this system is truly perplexing.

A federal democracy of the United Kingdom incorporating the Spanish Constitution of 1978 retains the monarchy and avoids the Clegg folly of having an upper house returned by the same electorate as the lower house, with which it will compete.

Clegg's idiotic proposal condemns the UK to civil war, precisely what the Pariament is designed to avoid.

17 July 2012 at 12:07  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Yes "The-conservatives-move-to-the-left-will-lose-them-the-next-election" is absolutely true. Albert @11.49.

The illiberal and intimidatory nature of much of today’s Coalition Government's policy and activism, wants to reconfigure relationships, eliminate the traditional family and hence eradicate the creation and upbringing of our children.

Now is the time for people of courage to rise up and defend faith and conservatism and the very foundations of our civilisation. The only right response? “Here I am, send me.” There is a season and a time for everything under the sun. For Conservatives and for Christians, the season of appeasement, fear and cowering in the corner is over. It is time for Cameron and Clegg to go.

“Whom shall I send,” said the Lord, “and who will go for us?”

17 July 2012 at 12:10  
Blogger Nicodemus said...

len said...
The coalition is giving us the worst of both Worlds.

In spite of all the negative drool I have just read (which I don't necessarily descent from per se) I happen to believe, like it or not, that the Coalition government is a means of God's grace to this country bringing a semblance of stability at this time.

17 July 2012 at 12:13  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

This government has lost its way, but I think that they will be in power whatever-could any of the boffins help here- I don't think we can have an election now till 2015, as the liberals passed a fixed parliament bill (another constitutional measure no-one voted for).

The government's worst policy error is allowing our money to the continuing failed efforts to prop up the Euro and the club med lifestyle (final salaried pensions, retiring at 50, generous welfare), rather than do a Canada and refuse to pay anymore money to Europe. If cameron had been a statesman he should have told Merkel to leave the Euro or tell the club med countries to leave, and we wouldn't be in this mess.

17 July 2012 at 12:24  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Albert @ 11.49 said, 'He has managed to alienate not only his core vote, but even his own "on the ground" party troops, without attracting anyone new.'

You're missing Dave's pure genius, Albert. Traditional Tory voters will be replaced by non-EU migrants who will be allowed to stay and by the extended Gay vote. Even though the homosexuals are only 1.5% of the population, each has two parents and possibly one sibling, representing another 4.5% of the population. This 6% demographic can probably be doubled to allow for doting grammies and aunties. The total homosexual electoral footprint could therefore be in the range 10-12%.

Given Dave's proven skill as a negotiator of Coalition agreements, one can expect to see him back on the Treasury benches.

Hopefully as deputy PM to Nigel Farage.

17 July 2012 at 12:24  
Blogger Naomi King said...

But Nicodemus does "stability" just mean "peace in our time" ?

There is a war going on at the heart of the nation. The political establishment, having fragmented our strong rich and cohesive Christianised culture by promoting corrosive relativism and neo-pagan multiculturalism, is now planning to fracture the bedrock social ideal of marriage as a life-long sexually exclusive union of a man and a woman. The Conservative prime minister, betraying many centuries of Christian marriage in his green and pleasant land and naively revelling in his Munich moment, makes virtue out of vice, holds a piece of paper aloft and declares triumphantly, “It’s Gay Marriage in our time”. ‘Gay marriage’ is not a human rights or equalities issue as civil partnerships fulfil those requirements. Rather it’s a deep cultural and ideological – even civilisational – war over life itself, a war declared unilaterally by the power-hungry intolerant and insatiable Stonewall Gaystapo et al.

Marginalised and dismissed as bigoted and homophobic, Christians are now despised as has-been and out of touch with the cool cosmopolitan mainstream. Christian believers are however the lone voice against this sexualisation, narcissism, hedonism, selfishness and materialism which results from neo-paganism. It is neo-paganism which has corroded and debased and caused this national confusion and self-doubt that has "hollowed out" our ruling class.

Conventional marriage was “ordained for the procreation of children” and is easily the only stable, healthy and committed domestic environment in which to bring up the next generation, God's future. On the other hand and by definition, gay marriage cannot be about procreation – nor about nurturing the next generation. Rather gay relationships are a life denying, sexual and generational dead-end. Women’s rights campaigners never argued that women should have the right to be called ‘men’. But gay campaigners insist on the right to be called ‘married’. They are clearly not on about claiming equal rights. They are campaigning to destroy the life affirming nature of marriage. It’s an ideological battle pure and simple. And it’s at the heart of our national culture and a vital to our future and very survival.

17 July 2012 at 12:25  
Blogger Jon said...

I don't know that political parties can survive in their current form. Maybe the Coalition will be the final nail in the coffin which has already been sealed by falling voter interest, declining party membership and the ongoing expenses scandal.

The requirements to conform to a pre-set manifesto agenda once in power, strains the relationship between a constituency and its MP as it is. The tendency of MPs to be urged by a party machine to act in a perceived "national interest" forces them to choose between their careers and the consideration of the balance of the interests of their constituents, to which they should ultimately be deferring.

Perhaps, political parties could more usefully dissolve themselves into looser affiliations of generally like- minded people (whose composition could change, issue by issue) without centrally set agendas. Campaigns could be more local (and therefore cheaper!) in nature, and this would reduce the tendency towards "career politicians" and encourage local people with a real skill or a lifetime of experience to contribute to the political process, at the expense of MPs who have done nothing with their lives outside of Westminster.

We originally started paying MPs because we wanted to be represented by working men who would otherwise not be able to afford to do so. I think voters, and the body politic in general would do well to ensure that future Houses of Commons are composed of more working people, and fewer political dilettants.

17 July 2012 at 12:39  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Scotland's day has come !


17 July 2012 BBC News Last updated at 00:03

Scottish cabinet discussing gay marriage

The Scottish cabinet is expected to discuss plans to legislate for same-sex marriage when it meets later today.

SNP ministers, who favour the move, are due to announce legislation this week in the wake of a consultation which resulted in 80,000 responses.

The proposals, which would see Scotland become the first part of the UK to introduce the policy, have provoked strong opposition from religious groups.

17 July 2012 at 12:39  
Blogger Jon said...

Naomi, I don't want you to think I'm being facetious (I'm really struggling not to be) but maybe you need to get onto Facebook or Pinterest? There you can post things which are relevant to your friends rather than clutter up message boards here with unrelated posts?

17 July 2012 at 12:47  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Naomi,

Your going a bit over the top today even by your standards. This thread has NOTHING to do with the specifics of gay marriage (even if it were, it a bit rich comparing it to the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s).

17 July 2012 at 13:02  
Blogger bluedog said...

My apologies, Anna.

It seems my post at 12.24 outlining the arithmetic of the homosexual vote has had a cathartic effect on Naomi.

I will try to be more careful in future.

17 July 2012 at 13:16  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Bluedog,

I wouldn't blame yourself, Naomi knows no shame when it comes to that issue. However, yours is an interesting point. If Dave is doing this for electoral reasons then it is quite bad politics, given a lot of conservative voters have solid traditional social views, not to say patronising to gays. He will loose more votes than gain if that is what he is thinking.

17 July 2012 at 13:20  
Blogger bluedog said...

Can only agree, Anna. But Dave would expect that his superior PR skills would save him from having to offer a consistent message. Like Blair, Dave says different things to different people, and persuades himself that everything he says is true.

17 July 2012 at 13:25  
Blogger Albert said...

I assume you're being ironic, Bluedog! After all, all the evidence is that Dave hasn't persuaded homosexuals and their supporters. They think he's insincere! Moreover, he has alienated Muslims and other vocal minorities in the process.

Why would these people move from Labour to Tory? Muslims (who have as a group, traditionally voted Labour) might have moved because Labour introduced gay marriage, but not the other way around!

17 July 2012 at 13:32  
Blogger IanCad said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 July 2012 at 14:05  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Yes Albert @13.32 ... "They think he's insincere !" Actually they think he is insane !

This is where these politics of coalition (unity ?) have got us...

Thanks especially to the green light from a permissive New Labour government and now an even keener faithless Coalition, the gay Wehrmacht is on its long march through the institutions and has already occupied the Sudetenland social uplands of

the Home Office (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/speeches/stonwall-2011),

the educational establishment (http://www.spectator.co.uk/error?404;http://www.spectator.co.uk:80/columnists/all/6725628/status-anxiety-a-lesson-in-satire-.thtml),

the politically-correct police (http://www.webaddresshelp.bt.com/main?InterceptSource=0&ClientLocation=uk&ParticipantID=mg76cjr54t8kx45jjw4j4k9j5hsr5m26&FailureMode=1&SearchQuery=&FailedURI=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christian.org.uk%2Fnews%2Fgwent-police-train-14-new-lgbt-liaison-officers%2F&AddInType=4&Version=2.1.8-1.90base&Referer=&Implementation=0),

and the Guardianista management of the BBC (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html).

The UK’s victorious Gaystapo are now on a roll. Their gay-rights storm troopers take no prisoners as they annex our wider culture,

and hotel owners (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12214368)

and (http://www.webaddresshelp.bt.com/main?InterceptSource=0&ClientLocation=uk&ParticipantID=mg76cjr54t8kx45jjw4j4k9j5hsr5m26&FailureMode=1&SearchQuery=&FailedURI=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F1%2Fhi%2Fengland%2F8578787.stm&AddInType=4&Version=2.1.8-1.90base&Referer=&Implementation=0),

registrars (http://www.webaddresshelp.bt.com/main?InterceptSource=0&ClientLocation=uk&ParticipantID=mg76cjr54t8kx45jjw4j4k9j5hsr5m26&FailureMode=1&SearchQuery=&FailedURI=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Freligion%2F5594962%2FChristian-registrar-demoted-to-receptionist-after-she-refused-to-preside-over-gay-marriages.html&AddInType=4&Version=2.1.8-1.90base&Referer=&Implementation=0),

magistrates (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7071050.stm),

doctors (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8307647/Christian-GP-sacked-as-Government-drugs-adviser-for-gay-child-sex-link-study.html),

counsellors (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1080638/I-sacked-Relate---just-Im-Christian-refused-sex-advice-gay-couples.html)

and (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8261705/The-therapist-who-claims-she-can-help-gay-men-go-straight.html),

foster parents (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/28/christian-couple-lose-care-case),

grandparents (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/4365171/Social-services-remove-young-children-from-grandparents-and-arrange-adoption-by-gay-couple.html),

adoption agencies (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7952526/Last-Catholic-adoption-agency-faces-closure-after-Charity-Commission-ruling.html)

and traditional street preachers (http://www.spectator.co.uk/error?404;http://www.spectator.co.uk:80/spectator/thisweek/9981/keep-quiet-or-face-arrest.thtml)

and (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270364/Christian-preacher-hooligan-charge-saying-believes-homosexuality-sin.html)

all find themselves crushed under the pink jack-boot.

17 July 2012 at 14:59  
Blogger Owl said...

Naomi makes some very valid points.

It is clear that Dave (heir of Blair) has his own agenda which has very little if anything to do with the will of the people.

The ongoing, deliberate, destruction of society in the UK is definitely planned. The "family" as a basic unit of society is under attack from the very people who should be defending it, our politicians!

Who is pulling their strings?

17 July 2012 at 15:43  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Thank you Owl and God bless you.

17 July 2012 at 15:51  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...


How terrible for us all to live under such a wicked liberal democratic regime. Meanwhile in other parts of the world Christians are being killed for their faith and are having their churches blown up...

17 July 2012 at 16:00  
Blogger Owl said...


One is called radical Islamism, the other is called Fabianism.

The means are different but the, hoped for, "end" is the same.

How the two factions then sort their differences is open.

What is not considered by either is that Christianity won't die.

17 July 2012 at 16:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. While the Liberals are experiencing for the first time in living memory what government power is all about, they are upsetting as they go their traditional supporters. Of course, this is what happens when you are all things to all men, you ultimately upset the lot…

Meanwhile the Conservatives try to govern best they can with one hand tied behind their back. If we ignore SSM and futile Lord’s reforming, they actually haven’t done badly. Of course, Clegg will be bitter about his Lord’s plans going up the chimney, and no doubt sooner or later Liberal support will not be there when it’s required. Wrapped up with that lack of support will be a note saying this is what you get when you make Nick cry.

So bring it on, and let the Liberals walk out in a huff. We then go and ask the country for a mandate. We say in this most difficult of economic times, blah, blah, Liberal faint hearts, blah, putting their own selfish agenda before the country, etc. And yes, not forgetting the perennial ‘need for unity at this difficult hour’. Always a good one that, shows you care and they don’t - don’t you think…

17 July 2012 at 16:13  
Blogger Jon said...

The other interesting thing about the UK's political parties is their prizing loyalty to the tribe over loyalties to the supposed principles of the tribe.

This can be seen most prominently when MPs cross the floor. They are often derided as careerist, but don't seem to do that well in in their new homes (most of the time).

It's all the more reason why I think parties (or really, party members) ought to consider dissolving into loose coalitions on an issue by issue basis.

Incidentally, building on my theme from earlier, it would enable bills to be presented and scrutinised by interested MPs rather than a House of Commons more interested in party advantage. If we had a more effective scrutinising House of Commons, I think we could legitimately scrap the Lords.

17 July 2012 at 16:19  
Blogger Naomi King said...

The Terrence Higgins Trust received £15m of public funding (71% of total income of £21 m) in 2011: almost double the 2007 public funding figure of £8 !

And this while the Nation has been in Deep Recession !

Terrence Higgins Trust has recently received a £200,000 government grant from the Department of Education to deliver sex education

by Jessica Geen
Pink News
24 May 2011, 5:02pm

Terrence Higgins Trust will run a new sexual education programme by and for young people. HIV and sexual health charity Terrence Higgins Trust (THT) has been granted £203,528 of government funding to run a sex education programme in schools and youth clubs in England. The programme, called the Sexual Health Champions Programme (SHCP), will fund 100 children aged between 14 and 19 to be trained as ‘Sexual Health Champions’ by theTerrence Higgins Trust (THT) . Children as young as 14 will be teaching their peers about sex in schools in London, Colchester, Bristol, Birmingham and Leeds.

They will then lead peer-to-peer sessions for 2,000 more young people, while 40 young people who are deemed most at risk of sexual ill-health will receive one-to-one mentoring from these 14 - 19 year olds. The grant comes from the Department of Education. Terrence Higgins Trust’s chief executive, Sir Nick Partridge, said: “The group is “delighted” to receive the money. This funding will provide vital sex and relationships education and support for 14-19 year-olds in the UK. “

For the Terrence Higgins Trust’s advice on "watersports, scat, fisting, felching, and rimming", you can request their health booklets The Bottom Line and Below The Belt by calling THT on 020-7812 1600. One could consider whether giving advice about drinking urine, eating faeces, inserting forearms up recta, sucking semen from anuses through a straw, and tongue-licking the rear end of men’s alimentary canals can be seen as sound or even acceptable health advice ? Or that the Terrence Higgins Trust was a fit and proper organisation to be involved in this delicate area of school curicula. Perhaps Sir Nick Partridge as CEO of Terrence Higgins Trust and also as Deputy Chair of the Healthcare Commission, the independent healthcare watchdog for England, could explain ?

Protests have now been made to the Charity Commission about this Organisation.

Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust, said: “Parents and teachers should not be abdicating their responsibilities in this way and using school children to offer advice in areas where they lack wisdom, experience and maturity.”

17 July 2012 at 16:19  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...


I think your thinking of a US Congress style system and that would mean making sure the executive does not sit in parliament.

I am not sure it is possible as political hacks have a vested interest in the current regime and you would get cries of getting nothing done a la the US gridlocked system. Personally, I think that is a good thing- so much crappy legislation gets pass on the nod via the power of the whips.

17 July 2012 at 16:29  
Blogger Jon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 July 2012 at 16:30  
Blogger Jon said...

Inspector - I agree with you about the Lib Dems. I've seen their countryside incarnation (basically the Countryside Alliance) and their city incarnation (to the left of Labour on everything) and find them pretty dubious as a result.

I don't think the Tories have done as well as you think though. They have failed to address the scope of the state, and barely made a dent on its fiscal size in their term - in spite of this being the raison d'etre of the coalition. I'm in favour of a relatively strong government, but its scope in the UK crowds out private enterprise from some sectors where it could flourish (and indeed does in far more left wing countries than the UK).

The UK's AAA rating is only retained by virtue of the fact that the Bank of England has monetised our deficit almost completely for the last few years (with unknowable long term consequences for pensions, annuities and the investment climate in the UK).

All in all, I think the Tories have made the curious decision to attract the opprobrium of having made deep cuts in the public sector, without actually having delivered them. Their polling difficulties are therefore entirely self- inflicted. Labour would win an election held today because they aren't the Tories rather than on any of their own merits, and you only have the Tories to blame for that.

17 July 2012 at 16:31  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

Have you got the message yet?

Cameron only wants to Prime Minister of the Coalition. He regards it as permanent, either side of the next or any other General Election.

You will never be able to claim that he had deceived you. He has always been entirely open about his intentions.

17 July 2012 at 16:33  
Blogger Jon said...

Here's one for Naomi:


The Church of England has been handing out leaflets with titles like "Ezekiel" dealing with such smut as "men with genitals like a donkey and whose emissions were like that of a horse".

Rowan Williams, Chief Executive of Church of England PLC (and also chief executive of the Church of England children's indoctrination authority) said that you can apply for access to such pornography by visiting your local Church, but that he was planning to ensure that every schoolchild had access to Ezekiel and other such materials as it was a "guide for how to live your life". The Church of England was given a shed load of land by a monarch who wanted to shag a new woman every week with the blessing of a bishop, and has since abandoned even the pretence of the principles it was endowed with subsequent to its foundation.


You know that what you're doing is the height of bad manners to our blog host, and it's inconsiderate to those who wish to debate the issues actually being presented.

You are also deliberately confusing the different parts of a charity which helps to counsel people who find themselves in very difficult circumstances, often not of their own choosing, and its work in other areas to present information in ways that different types of people will accept, to hopefully reduce instances of transmission of disease.

Quite clearly, your obsession is consuming you in a way which can't be healthy. Anyone who has time to read all those links, let alone repost them with commentary clearly has too much time on their hands, and more importantly, not an ounce of compassion.

17 July 2012 at 16:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

On the question of Lord’s reform, we really do need to get away from the past.

The building they use would make a superb venue for an English parliament in the Scottish devolved style. If we plan for it now, we could pull the rug from under King Salmon and avoid the tragedy of Scottish independence. Because, they would then have not that much to be independent from. The essentials of state, foreign policy, defence, and a NEW relationship with the EU would be shared.

The ‘checks and balances’ function of the Lords would be transferred to the select committees…

One ‘unfortunate’ ( heh heh ) outcome of this plan is there would be no more room for placemen and women who receive prime ministerial patronage to sit in the Lords. In other words, you need to have been in and won a first past the post election, or you do not take part. There to be NO exceptions, that means you Lords spiritual, all hereditary peers, and last, but by no means the least of them, the usual arse kissers who turn up there after a political life of mediocrity and self interest, much to everyone else’s disgust…

If only for the last part alone, does the Inspector commend this to the Palace (…of Cranmer…)

17 July 2012 at 16:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Jon. You are of course correct. Mrs King is rather taking liberties, but she is this site’s Joan of Arc ! Hadn’t you noticed ?

The Inspector does not wish to compound any further thread misappropriation, so he says the following as a statement and not as a debating point

Re you line to her: You are also deliberately confusing the different parts of a charity which helps to counsel people who find themselves in very difficult circumstances, often not of their own choosing,

If Terence Higgins (pbuh!) people really did have the interests of the young sexually confused at heart, they would split that part away from the nefarious propaganda unit the rest of it is. But of course, that isn’t going to happen, is it. Not the way the latter hides behind the former. Still, it doesn’t matter. We’ll just have to shoot ALL of it down in flames, even the debatable charity work it might do. All to be casualties of war…

17 July 2012 at 17:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Paul Twigg: "How terrible for us all to live under such a wicked liberal democratic regime."

Lol. Very good.

17 July 2012 at 17:39  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Cranmer said, "Prior to the 19th century, politics was exercised by independent MPs"

That's our only hope now too. Party politics kills political discourse. In fact our whole democratic system is now just an anachronistic sham.

The idea that we vote for one of 3 (or 2 more realistically) parties to represent all our views on everything for 5 years is absolutely ludicrous. And the idea that we need a proxy at all is also out-dated.

Yet, Cranmer, come May 2015, you'll be advocating we vote Conservative using the ridiculous, antiquated, dysfunctional voting system we have.

I now go along with the majority & vote with my feet.

17 July 2012 at 17:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

When it comes to the legislative process, the Inspector is of the opinion that you cannot plan it to work well. It either does or it does not.

A English parliament and the existing House of Commons would not be in direct conflict with each other. That means you wouldn’t need unity between them.

One can see the first being the more energetic of the two, and the Commons being the ‘higher’ house, where the matters that cover the Kingdom are thrashed out. Maybe it could operate in the ‘checks and balances’ role. Obviously, not so much discussion time would be needed so that house would be somewhat relaxed in it’s sitting times.

One cannot help feeling that it would invigorate the democratic process in this country. After all, there would be two focuses of lawmaking….

17 July 2012 at 18:09  
Blogger IanCad said...

Good Analysis YG,

The liberties of this land depend on the survival of The Conservative Party.
Strong leadership combined with MP's who have at least some knowledge of our history and the woes that befall us when we forget it.
Fragmentation and disunity are on the cards.
Can't help but think that we're heading for some real big history.

17 July 2012 at 18:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "You are of course correct. Mrs King is rather taking liberties, but she is this site’s Joan of Arc ! Hadn’t you noticed ?"

Well, as depicted in the Luc Besson film perhaps.

17 July 2012 at 18:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

"All political parties in a liberal democracy are coalitions of the disparate, if not the diverse, come together to agree upon a broad philosophy of government."

Very true but at times of crisis and 'turning points' clear and determined leadership is needed.

It all sounds a bit like Anglicanism too, doesn't it? Find the middle ground upon which all can agree.

And, I for one, can see the relevance of Mrs Kings posts which she is entitled to post unTIL our host requests otherwise. Admittedly she does overdo IT somewhat and I doubt many of her links are followed.

We've all been guilty of this. I mean Anna you recently went off on one on nuclear fusion and fission. Did anyone complain?

Breaking News
Scotish Cabinet refuses Catholic Church's request for referendum on homosexual marriage but delays decision asking for a closer look at this issues.

More moves made by Scottish children's charities to make all parental smacking illegal.

17 July 2012 at 18:36  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Dodo,

Naomi King comes here with one intent and that is to rant and rail against gays. My off topic discussion on nuclear fusion didn't actually do that did it?

17 July 2012 at 18:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


No but it was way, way off topic, that's the point. And, if you read the first few posts of Mrs King, you'll see they deal with something far wider than homosexuality - nihilism.

And what you call "rant and rave" others may regard as legitimate comment.

17 July 2012 at 19:05  
Blogger Berserker said...

For Jon
If we scraped the House of Lords and had a single chamber we would certainly get a more effective House of Commons. I've made this point in previous posts: many countries have successfully got rid of their dual systems and some like Sweden have merged the two Houses.

What is needed is a more effective White Paper system. Feedback should be more comprehensive and widespread.

17 July 2012 at 20:56  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...


His Grace's bottom line is over to the right somewhere. Naomi has as much right to rant about the supposed 'gay Raj' or some much nonsense as much as you can talk about astrophysics (although I know which of the two of you I was rather spend time with).

17 July 2012 at 21:22  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Inspector @ 16.49 and 18.09, keep thinking along those lines!

Nicholas Soames MP in his Telegraph article on constitutional catastrophe was wrong in his assessment of the functionality of the HoL, but right to forsee potential disaster from Cleggist reform. But then, Soames has never been the sharpest tool in the shed.

Mr Jon @ 16.19, the easiest tribe for the Tories to capture 100% would be the over-65s (see Census). Forecast to be one in six of the population (16.6%) shortly, the majority are of a conservative disposition and of testamentary capacity. In the latter regard, possibly of declining capacity but that may be a political benefit.

In the main the over-65s will be White British and hence anti-third world immigration. The problem is this very large cohort is not evenly dispersed but becoming concentrated in a few coastal electorates.

A compulsory re-settlement programme may be required.

17 July 2012 at 22:29  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

@Blue Dog,

You are suggesting a pensioner's party? Except the Chancellor has gone as much as he can to shelter the pensioners during this economic recession, so he is aware of the fact more golden oldies vote. (those with the gold plated final salary private and public sector pensions) moan endlessly . Cheer up- those of us working now probably won't have any pensions and probably won't retire.

17 July 2012 at 22:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bluedog. We should all weep tears for Clegg, as perhaps he will himself. One cannot help but consider his reforms would have been to the benefit of the Lib Dems first, and the country a poor second. Indeed, we should not expect otherwise.

Join the Inspector in a joint howl, old hound ?

17 July 2012 at 22:51  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Paul Twigg @ 22.42, there's nothing pejorative about the term 'Pensioners Party'.

In the USA they call it the Tea Party.

The key to success in any marketing exercise, includes politics, is to segment the market and offer the right service/product to the relevant demographic. The Over-65s are a large and homogenous group that are highly susceptible to traditional Tory offerings.

Of course, Dave has successfully alienated this group.

The Old White Working-class is a very similar socially conservative demographic, say another 15% of the electorate. If Dave was bright enough to pitch exclusively to the UK Tea-Party and the OWWC he would immediately corner 30% of the vote.

The trouble is, to achieve the above, Dave needs to abandon two core positions, Same Sex Marriage and EU membership. As abandonement of these toxic lost causes is not even a remote possibility, a Conservative electoral wipe-out under Cameron's leadership is guaranteed.

That's an outcome determined by path dependency.

17 July 2012 at 22:58  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...


"a Conservative electoral wipe-out under Cameron's leadership is guaranteed."

Interesting- although I suspect the Euro's collapse will do this anyway.

17 July 2012 at 23:16  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Blue Dog,

Aren't the Tea Party a bunch of right wing uncompromising lunatics?

Hi Paul Twigg,

Your right- Naomi does have the right of his grace's freedom of speech. But must she rant like she does?

Hi Dodo,

"legitimate comment"- Grrrr

17 July 2012 at 23:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Do not growl at me young woman!

17 July 2012 at 23:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I know she was told to desist but I now rather miss her selected quotes from Romans spammed all over the place. Somehow they were even more 'Christian Voice' than these splurges are, and the more 'Christian Voice' religious people appear to be at the moment the better for us I think.

18 July 2012 at 06:25  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Just as was said earlier @09.56

"7 Familial and cultural suicide continues with a relentlessly brutal assault on Christians, Orthodox Jews, conservatives, the military, parents, and straight males (particularly white males) in which all are marginalized, psychologically bullied and targeted as "homophobes, bigots, racists, fascists, intolerant, divisive, weak and mentally ill,"

18 July 2012 at 07:07  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Dodo - Thanks for the breaking news on Scotland.

Inspector - Joan of Arc - martyrdom has always strengthened the Church

My piece on God v Nihilism comes from historical events. You know the truth of what I am saying.

And your Grace, yes I know Terrence Higgins Trust was off point but Anna inflamed me and anyway it is a scandal what they are up to and people need to know. As for the House of Lords I believe we are better off with a brake on the legislature rather than another (incompetent) elected chamber.

18 July 2012 at 07:15  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Posted on 17th, July 2012

The Conservative Party in the 21st century has set out to “assail and menace” established institutions like the family and the Church of England, Thomas Pascoe writes on the Telegraph website today [yesterday].

He says the party is “obsessed with the rights of marginal groups” and has “quarrelled with the Church of England over its attitude to gay marriage” as well as meddling with other national institutions.

He adds: “there are very few voters whose opinions correlate with the most moderate possible position. The common ground is not the same as the centre ground, as my colleague Norman Tebbit has rightly noted.”

And he argues that policies like gay marriage will “force from the Conservative Party those voters on the Right who desire protection from the state and take solace in the traditional institutions of the country.”

He concludes: “If voters are to have a positive reason to vote for the party, however, it needs to come from the defence of traditional institutions, not their further destruction.”


18 July 2012 at 07:46  
Blogger Naomi King said...

The coalition has meddled with the laws of succession, quarrelled with the Church of England over its attitude to gay marriage, weakened the Army as a fighting force, put the interests of other nations above our own in terms of spending and sought to make the definition of family so porous that any motley assembly of adults and children counts. No party which perceives austerity to involve increasing spending by eight per cent year on year stands for fiscal conservatism. See Guardian article entitled

"UK government borrowing higher than expected as income tax receipts fall"


"the Conservatives under Cameron have been painstaking in their movement Leftwards. The party is conciliatory on Europe, obsessed with the rights of marginal groups and afraid or unable to arrest economic or social decline."


18 July 2012 at 08:07  
Blogger bluedog said...

Anna Albion @ 23.22 asked, '...a bunch of right wing uncompromising lunatics?'

Look, this communicant is Out and Proud as a right wing uncompromising lunatic and feeling fabulous as a consequence.

18 July 2012 at 09:01  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Bluedog - alleluya !

18 July 2012 at 09:14  
Blogger bluedog said...

Thanks Mrs Naomi King @ 08.07 & 09.14, this communicant certainly agree with the points raised in the DT.

Those in the electorate who voted Conservative in May 2010 hoping for a return to traditional Conservative values have been completely betrayed. Cameron is well to the Left of Blair and seemingly insensitive to the damage his social programme is wreaking on his electoral base.

When Cameron broke the cast-iron promise regarding a referendum on the treaty of Lisbon it was seen as an unfortunate one-off. It wasn't. It was clearly the start of a well considered programme shared between Cameron, Clegg, Osborne and a handful of others. Conservative MPs who entered the HofC in the May 2010 draft will feel doubly betrayed. They have given up their careers for the Conservative cause only to find that their gamble has been compromised from the very start. The prospect of resuming a former career outside politics in the current economic environment will be daunting indeed.

These disillusioned Conservative MPs have a number of options open to them, none of which will ensure victory but some may mitigate the now inevitable defeat. Decisions need to be made about two problems, Cameron and Coalition. None of the choices are pleasant, and the words of Sir Francis Drake, ' Time lost at sea can never be regained' apply to politics too.

In the meantime UKIP's market share will grow.

Thank you, Dave.

18 July 2012 at 09:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bluedog: "and feeling fabulous as a consequence."


18 July 2012 at 10:17  
Blogger Preacher said...

I really cannot see that this is real coalition, but rather a marriage of convenience.
Several postings have suggested the eradication of the party system.
This makes sound sense, the party whips would go, the populace would have more representation & the M.P's would be answerable to their electorate.
This would have huge benefits. The system would be streamlined, the major issues would be addressed & jockeying for positions to gain votes for the next election from minority groups would no longer exist.
One has to admit that no system is flawless & all have dangers & are open to abuse, but it could be a vast improvement on the current situation.
Most marriages of convenience don't last long & end in acrimony & tears. Let us hope the extended family (us) don't suffer as a result.

18 July 2012 at 10:44  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

@Bluedog - The problem is that, because of the aforementioned problems with party politics, UKIP will struggle in 2015 unless there is a real balls up by all 3 main political parties (and by that I mean that they all do a Ron Burgundy and literally tell the voters to "go fuck yourself") because when voters think about the country being run they don't think beyond Tory, Labour or Lib-Dem (and sometimes not even the LDs get a look in!) when they put pen to paper.
UKIP may gain a few of seats in the current situation, but people who vote will want to make sure that their vote counts, which counts out the smaller parties (at least in the average voter's mind) most of the time.

18 July 2012 at 10:46  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

@Preacher - The problem is that getting rid of political parties would be like trying to get turkeys to vote for Christmas

18 July 2012 at 10:48  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Youthpasta, the FPTP system has a tipping point in the range 15-20% of the aggregate vote. Once a political party breaks into this zone, a flow of seats is the natural consequence. UKIP are already on 15% in surveys, well above the Lib-Dims, and therefore UKIP have a reasonable chance of successfully contesting a bye-election between now and May 2015.

Further Progressive outrages from Cameron and Clegg seem assured, so that the Conservative core vote will continue to erode. One simply can not envisage this destructive trend reversing with Cameron as Conservative leader.

UKIP are in the enviable position of fighting an opponent with a death wish. Is all UKIP have to do is avoid making mistakes, and they seem to have the collective wisdom to do this, easily.

In summary, if UKIP were to reach a 20% approval rating, they could potentially emerge as the dominant conservative voice in British politics.

RIP the Conservative and Unionist Party.

18 July 2012 at 11:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Gentleman, much scorn has been poured on the party system. The Inspector understands this. He has spent his life considering ways to defeat the Devil and his ideas. The party system as it has degenerated to is surely one of man’s darker ideas.

Now, in the spirit of reforming what we have, here’s the plan.

On the ballot paper, the only thing to be printed there is the candidates’ name. Absolutely NOTHING else, and that includes blasted emblems, be they red roses, flaming torches or whatever it is the lib dems use now. The image of a rent boy would not surprise this man, reflecting the way our political servants kiss the behinds of sodomisors these days.

Democracy as it was meant to be. If the elected want to associate themselves with a party on election, that’s their business. This idea has been aired before, with much howling and grief resulting. Including “how will the electorate know who to vote for ?”

Well, that’s the whole point of the exercise, the electorate will just have to take a bloody INTEREST in who are up to represent them. The days of spoon feeding the thick to enable them to take part in the democratic process should be banished to past.

18 July 2012 at 11:36  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Dodo,

No longer growling at you, but reserve the right to do so in the future.

Hi Naomi,

Oh, sorry that I infuriated you and that there are other people on this blog that hold different world views. I was infuriated by your comparison of gays to Hitler/Nazi Germany- an inappropriate analogy.

Hi Bluedog,

I expect nothing less from a faithful old blue dog!

18 July 2012 at 11:38  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Preacher said @10.44 ... "a marriage of convenience"

I would say its a love match !

And one for Danjo

1JN 2:3 and 1JN 2:27 And hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep his commandments [and] abide in Him.

18 July 2012 at 11:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Interesting thought there Anna. If campaigning gay men are being used as modern storm troopers by the nefarious agents of degeneration working at political top level, there will come a time when they will no longer be of use and will be ‘retired’. As of course happened with the originals about a year after power was obtained.

It has to be that way. Some of those who are planning our 100% secular future must be just as disgusted with, {AHEM} let’s call it ‘gay abandon’ as the rest of us. However, these disciplined individuals keep their thoughts well under wraps – FOR NOW !

18 July 2012 at 12:05  
Blogger Jon said...

Naomi - interestingly, I pointed out on one of His Grace's posts about Andy Murray that Christians seemed happy for many of the commandments to be ignored, including keeping the sabbath holy.

It's funny - it's almost like you ignore commandments which tell you to change your lifestyle, but then preach on about commandments which call on others to do the same.... Weird, huh? I wonder if there's a word for people like you?

18 July 2012 at 17:12  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Dear Jon

You can rest assured I keep the Sabbath day.

18 July 2012 at 20:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Is that the best attack you can mount on Christianity? It is a very poor one and you might want to research the commandments a bit more. Was it a fundamentalist church you used to be a member of?

Whilst sin is sin, the active and conscious commitment to a sinful life and a freely chosen disregard of God's laws is more deadly for one's soul. To embrace a life of sin and attempt to justify it and convert others and society to it it far more grevious. An obession with what keeping Holy the Sabbath might mean and laying down precise rules is a rather puritanical approach. Christianity is not Judaism.

Wouldn't you agree?

19 July 2012 at 00:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Of course, one has to recognise a yardstick and promote it as a measuring stick in order to be judged by it in turn and declared a hypocrite. Moreover, no doubt almost everyone here is in dire straits as far as Allah is concerned but I don't suppose many of us give a toss about it. That's the thing about religious yardsticks, if you don't think they have merit then they're pretty much meaningless to you. People can talk about religious 'sin' until they're blue in the face for all it matters.

19 July 2012 at 06:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Those blue-faced people had better be saintly though, at least outwardly even if they can't manage it in private, otherwise they just look vicious and judgemental.

19 July 2012 at 06:48  
Blogger Naomi King said...

And another one for Danjo

1JN 5:19 - 21 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols.

1JN 3:8 - 10 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.

1JN 2:16 -17 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

19 July 2012 at 07:45  
Blogger Preacher said...

Danjo. You've been watching too much Avatar.

Youthpasta. Well Turkeys are pretty dumb, or Paxo would go skint.

Naomi. Nice one, but can't you see the mistrust in Clegg & Cameron. I'd say they think there's another partner in the wings & each suspects the other of playing away.

Blessings. Preacher.

19 July 2012 at 09:03  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - I'm not attacking Christianity, I'm attacking hypocritical Christians. I know that you subscribe to a convenient system of belief which "grades" sin, enabling more effective control of adherents' lives by the Church. My understanding was that sin was an absolute. We have all "sinned in the eyes of the Lord". There are no grades, there is only redemption or no redemption.

As such, for you to complain that some people wilfully engage in ongoing homosexual lifestyles, whilst otherwise "saintly" Christians flagrantly ignore rules in other parts of the bible without repentance smacks of hypocrisy. As I've pointed out before, the Church fails to rail against all sorts of "sins" which are endemic in modern life (not least the failure to keep the Sabbath which is one of the ten commandments, so I'm assuming it's pretty important if God literally wanted it set in stone, but also greed, avarice, adultery) because they have realised that to do so would alienate their core demographics.

As such, your repentance from your sin is half- hearted, since you are prepared to countenance ongoing sin in some circumstances, but not others.

The yardstick you are choosing to apply is therefore carefully calibrated to find your lifestyle acceptable and that of others wanting.

I'm not attacking Christianity per se - I'm merely proving that yours (as with some others here) is a Pick'n'mix kind of faith. Your acceptance of sin is based merely on your own prejudices rather than any biblical absolutes.

19 July 2012 at 10:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


As I said, is a puritanical critique of keeping Sunday as a day of rest really the best attack you can make against Christianity? And all this because a tennis player and other sportsmen and women and many ordinary people are required to work on a Sunday?

The rest of your post is complete nonsense based as it is on the premise that working on a Sunday renders Christians hypocrites.

I agree it would be far better for society if there was no Sunday opening and professional sports were not played on on this day. But do get real.

19 July 2012 at 14:37  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo, if you actually read the post, you'll notice that I'm not just critiquing the Church's failure to address the failure of its members to keep the Sabbath (although, as I point out, this law was literally set in stone, so it's probably significant).

I also point out that the Church has failed to address a number of "sins" which are prevalent in society today (as they have been for ages, really) - avarice, greed, adultery - you name it, the Church has conceded on it. I also noted that your Church has even cooked up some kind of sin rating system which you've referred me to before to try to explain why it has become so un-absolutist about some sin.

Because of this compromise, any attempt which it makes to pretend that it has any kind of moral basis on which to pronounce on the lives of some others, when it so studiously ignores the unrepentant sins committed by its members, day in day out, bespeaks an organisation which has adopted an "a la carte" approach to its holy book to suit its own agenda and prejudices rather than because of any moral attachment to the guidance offered therein.

DanJ0 doesn't go far enough in his critique at 06.45 - it's not just that the religious yardsticks are meaningless to those who don't abide by the religion, it's that they are set aside when they become inconvenient to the propagation of the religious faith to which they are purported to be so important.

19 July 2012 at 16:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


What absolute nonsense you post!

The Catholic Church has always stood clearly and uncompromisingly against adultery, divorce, abortion, promiscuity, abortion, greed, avarice and all sin - 'venial' or 'grevious'. The distinction for Catholics is that some sin immediately ends the relationship with Christ and is terminal for Grace. Others, whilst not having this effect, cumulatively result in the same outcome. No blind eye is turned to any sin.

As for all your talk of compromise, ignoring unrepentant sin and having an "a la carte" approach to God's law, well that's just not an accurate statement about Catholicism.

I will not answer for Anglicanism.

The propagation of homosexuality (an individual sin) and the normalisation of this disorder (making it societal) is, according to Church teaching, an attack on the very foundation of society - the family. DanJ0 has even conceded 'sexual liberation' has resulted in social instability.

19 July 2012 at 16:42  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - that's interesting. I haven't noticed the Church railing against usury much (at least until the post credit crunch bandwagon got going). Indeed, as I've detailed here before, several Churches have sizeable usurious pots of cash from which to draw. What was the penalty for usury again?

The Church is also silent on a multitude of other sins - wearing garments of mixed fabrics, planting two crops side by side, touching the skin of a dead pig, dealing with women's menstrual cycles etc. Your church has chosen what it wants to obey, or what it thinks it can force its flock to accept, and discarded the rest. A la carte- style.

I was taught that either one is in sin or one is free from sin through grace. Gradations of sin are therefore meaningless. Since repentance implies turning away from sin, repeated sin is an affront to grace, but doesn't imply severance from grace, only that one needs the support of the Holy Spirit to do better.

But how convenient that the Church can proscribe behaviours which involve immediate severance of grace. Does it also sell indulgences to get you back in favour?!

I made no reference to social instability. I have no idea why you brought this up - the church's mission is not to ensure social stability, any more than it is to be a curator of museum piece buildings.

Your yardsticks have no meaning, not because they're not a useful way to live your life (they may well even be the optimal outcomes for human happiness and development) but because you don't use the yardsticks yourselves - you pick and choose. Please explain how Catholicism has remained true to all the laws in the Bible, or accept that it takes an a la carte approach.


19 July 2012 at 17:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "DanJ0 has even conceded 'sexual liberation' has resulted in social instability."

Conceded? You're really weird.

19 July 2012 at 18:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Jon. One believes the problem you have with Christianity is that you fail to realise that it is very much a one to one religion. That is, it’s between you and God. Now, the confusion may lie in that people of influence with Christian belief will inevitably be guided by their religion when it comes to the natural application of their will above others. Which we all know as politics.

Rather simple really, don’t you think ?

19 July 2012 at 23:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


You need to free yourself from your early religious formation and the hostility you have to what you understand to be Christianity.

The Catholic Church does have teachings on usury. These are readily available on Catholic websites. The current Pope has been a very strong critic of immoral capitalism and the financial markets. So too was Blessed John Paul. There is a long tradition in Catholicism on promoting social justice.

Perhaps the central point of Christianity is that the Mosaic Covenant, with all its rules and regulations, was superceeded by the New Covenant in Christ. The Church was given authority to interpret the application of and compliance with God's Law.

I've answered your accusation already about al a carte Christianity and can only restate you are wrong about the Catholic Church.

As for the nature of sin and the process of justification, you will have read all the exchanges about this between Catholics and Prostentants. I have given you my understanding of the Catholic view of sin. If fits with a theology on justification that differs from the one you learned.

In answer toyour final point, the Catholic Church believes that God's law is there for and works to promote human health and wellbeing. Following His will and building a society on Christian principles, will work to society's advantage; ignoring them will work against it.

"Your yardsticks have no meaning, not because they're not a useful way to live your life (they may well even be the optimal outcomes for human happiness and development) but because you don't use the yardsticks yourselves - you pick and choose."

We can agree on this if it is a charge addressed to individual Catholics and not to the Church itself. The yardsticks do have meaning and to be true to Christ, one has to, through Grace and strength from the Church, adhere to them.

20 July 2012 at 01:20  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said...
"Dodo: "DanJ0 has even conceded 'sexual liberation' has resulted in social instability."
Conceded? You're really weird."

Forgotten this recent post of yours?

"We're freer now as people but arguably less stable as a society. As a liberal, I rate freedom very highly, and the potential for diverse lifestyles. Stability is still very important though."

At the time I responded that social convention was hardly a 'tyranny'. It's the glue that holds a culture together. How do you as a 'liberal' balance individual freedom with resulting social harm?

You never answered the questions raised nor addressed this very obvious contradiction in your 'liberal' position about homosexual marriage.


20 July 2012 at 01:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, I was scoffing at your use of 'conceded' as though I was forced by weight of counter argument to give up a cherished position. I don't hold a cherished position there. In fact I'm explicitly advocating same-sex marriage to increase internal social stability.

As for answering your questions, I was in the middle of a long, sensible, polite debate which you and your sidekick were trying to disrupt as is your wont. You ought to be embarrassed about your behaviour in that thread rather than quote from it.

Moreover, I simply don't take you at all seriously as you're none too bright, a psychological mess, and weirdly immature for an old man. There's no sensible debate to be had with you. You're just interested in causing conflict for your own messed-up ends.

20 July 2012 at 06:35  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Yes of course when you have no answer you fall back on abuse. You clearly linked social instability with freedom in that long and tortuous discussion then side-stepped the implications.

Interesting too the way you project onto others your own failings - none too bright (check); a psychological mess (check); and immature for an old man (check). As for your motives, we know you're a 'one trick pony' who only comments on a single issue in an attempt to adapt the world to make himself feel comfortable whatever the consequences.

Have a good day at the office - "engineer" is it?

20 July 2012 at 11:12  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - the Catholic Church still engages in usury, though, right? I mean, it has a bank which presumably pays interest!

Your defence of this is therefore that Mosaic law can be discarded as the Church sees fit as per your statement "The Church was given authority to interpret the application of and compliance with God's Law." Let's see no more quotes from Deuteronomy about homosexuality then - since you've confirmed my point about the Church being empowered to pick and choose the rules it enforces.

The Inspector's point is interesting. If Christianity is a matter of personal conscience, what is the point of these catholic latin tracts that you keep referring to, or indeed, the point in the Priesthood if the divine revelation is actually a personal one? The church after all could just be a body of people rather than a structured organisation. Could it be that the RCC's pronouncements on issues of theology are actually really an obfuscation of personal religious experience which are designed more to retain the Church's control through fear of heresy or excommunication, than to enhance the believer's religious journey? Just a thought...

The bureaucracy is expanding, to meet the expanding needs of the bureacracy!

20 July 2012 at 11:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, I was happily debating with someone else when you tried to disrupt it. Despite what the more weird left-footers here seem to think, I'm not obliged to engage with any of you at all. If you weren't in your usual two-week post-humiliation meltdown period then I might be tempted to try to understand what on earth you're trying to say. However, I'm minded just to let you flail about trying to hit out with anything and everything as you appear to be dong now. There's something of those Channel 4 series about freaks in watching you during these periods: one feels a bit grubby as an observer but it's strangely compelling nonetheless.

20 July 2012 at 11:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Of course, I'm happy to revisit the original thread to discuss any outstanding points with AIB if he thinks there's any merit in whatever it is you're saying. I'm very confident in my various positions regarding liberalism, atheism, secularism (wrt the State), abortion, and same-sex marriage. I wouldn't argue about them otherwise.

20 July 2012 at 12:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


How do you manage to live with yourself? I mean, a living legend who has the answers to all of life's questions.

Where do you go from here? Only one way, I'd say.

20 July 2012 at 22:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Set up my own Magisterium and sell off-the-shelf solutions for life's problems to the weak-minded and gullible in order to have power over people and justify my own existence?

21 July 2012 at 08:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Or, in your spare time trawl the internet demonstrating how fabulously clever you are. For a living? Well, you could manipulate the insecurities of people about and soften them up for insurance and investment companies.

As I said, just one way to go.

21 July 2012 at 09:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm a professional, degree-qualified engineer, Dodo. I've already told you this, and I've mentioned it here many months ago. The sort of engineer, as it goes, who usually becomes chartered as his career progresses.

It's neither here nor there to me whether you believe me. In fact, I quite like the way you're presenting yourself as a bit of a stalker about it now. You don't seem to see your hypocrisy either, given what you said in that thread about Owl. As I said, self-awareness is not one of your core attributes.

You're firming up to be a proper, certified, internet loony, actually. Normally, they're socially inadequate people with low self-esteem and anger management issues. Every forum has at least one who tries to reach through the screen to redress the humiliations they attract. You're ours.

21 July 2012 at 10:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Yes, yes, a familiar tactic.

I am not the one with low self-esteem or anger management issues, am I? As for attracting humiliation, let's say it is not something I encounter. My personal and professional life is an open book. And yours?

22 July 2012 at 01:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "My personal and professional life is an open book."

What's your name, job title and the name of your employer. A direct question, to use your term, which carries your associated obligations. I'm not interested myself, I'd really rather not know actually, but let's see if it's as open as you claim and if you're willing to take the potential impact yourself.

If the open personal life thing is a reference to my not making it explicitly known at my workplace that I'm gay then you're relying on what Americans might call a hetero-normative paradigm in order to be open without any subsequent impact.

I'm an engineer [1] as I have said and the engineering work environment still tends to be a little homophobic. It certainly was when I started my career. It may have affected, and may still affect, my career progression. It actually became a problem at a past company, as a result of rumours and homophobia (including abuse, which is now illegal), and I eventually left.

Why would I potentially attract that simply to be 'open' when none of us are obliged to discuss our home life, relationships, sex life, and so on at work? The homophobia is their problem, not mine, but the impact of it still falls on me. I'm not in the least bit ashamed of my sexual orientation. I have explained all this before of course, and fairly recently. It just doesn't suit you, it seems.

22 July 2012 at 08:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

[1] Consistency, you see. Being truthful means that different strands hang together naturally.

22 July 2012 at 08:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Danjo ,
bet you get no answer.

24 July 2012 at 23:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

len: "bet you get no answer."

He can't answer because he'll open himself up to possible abuse in his real life, perhaps including an adverse impact on his job as a result of his behaviour. Though nothing from me, of course, all things being equal. It's very ironic because if he thought about it for a moment then that's exactly why some people choose not to advertise parts of their private lives at work when it's completely unnecessary to do so.

26 July 2012 at 17:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, I'd strongly advise him not to. It's better to accept the destruction of his own point.

26 July 2012 at 17:31  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older