Friday, September 21, 2012

An Open Letter to Maria Miller MP, Minister for Women and Equalities

Dear Mrs Miller,

Firstly, congratulations on your promotion to Culture Secretary and Minister of State of Women and Equalities. One notes that the Deputy Prime Minister refers to Jo Swinson MP as ‘our’ Equalities Minister, and that Helen Grant MP also appears also to have some responsibility for Women and Equalities, so it is heartening that so many fair-minded women are working toward equality for all.

You will be aware that last week the Deputy Prime Minister made known his real attitude toward those – including very many Conservative Party members and supporters – who oppose the Government’s plans to redefine marriage. We are ‘bigots’, he was due to say, until it became apparent that it’s rather a disdainful, intolerant and illiberal, not to say ‘bigoted’ attitude for any politician to hold.

Many of us who believe in traditional marriage (i.e., as a union of one man and one woman) do so for honourable and sincere reasons. We believe that the planned redefinition raises profound issues relating to civil liberties and conscience, and that the policy – which did not appear in any party's manifesto on the run-up to the 2010 General Election – deserves a mature and considered debate.

A summary of the legal opinion of Aidan O’Neill QC, a leading human rights lawyer, raises a number of scenarios which could (and undoubtedly will) arise should the proposed redefinition become law. There would be serious implications for the Established Church of England, NHS chaplains, teachers, sex education, parents, faith schools, foster parents, public facilities, marriage registrars, and a push for religious gay weddings, whatever exemptions may be specified by statute. A summary of Aidan O’Neill’s opinion may found HERE.

In this context, your own Out4Marriage video is concerning on a number of levels, not least of which is your fervent support for the change, the implication of which is that the redefinition of marriage will be included in the Queen’s Speech in May 2013.

It is evident that supporters of equal marriage have already been leaked information relating to the Government’s ‘consultation’, and that both sides are not therefore being treated equally. This may well have resulted in a response which is heavily weighted against sustaining the conservative view of marriage because there were no safeguards against multiple submissions, or against submissions from unconnected persons overseas. It was, in short, a profoundly flawed methodology for data-gathering.

But even more concerning is that you yourself appear to pre-empt the findings of this ‘consultation’, establishing precisely what many of us suspected and wrote at the time – namely, that it was not a consultation at all: the Prime Minister had already determined to introduce same-sex marriage ‘because he is a Conservative’.

The ‘consultation’ was concerned exclusively with the staggeringly narrow but politically expedient ‘how’, rather than the socially responsible and morally imperative ‘if’. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the previous Equalities Minister and sundry other senior political figures are all known to be in favour of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, and have made their views known. A consultation which does not consult is nothing but a façade of democracy.

You acknowledge in your video that ‘equal civil marriage is something that people feel very strongly about’ but the rest of that sentence is a non-sequitur, for that is not the reason you undertook the consultation. Those who ‘feel very strongly’ opposed were completely sidelined: the policy was fixed.

You say that you are ‘looking at those submissions very carefully indeed’, but follow this with a slap in the face to millions of people – of all faiths and none – who oppose your plans. You say: “But there’s one thing that I and the Government know is the importance of marriage and the value that it brings to our society, whether that’s a marriage between a man and a woman, two men or two women. Marriage should be for everyone, and the measures that we’ve brought forward to make sure that marriage is open to all couples will help make sure that marriage is strengthened in our society and more relevant than ever.”

To say in one breath that you are ‘looking at those submissions very carefully indeed’, and then to disclose, on behalf of the Government, that marriage has already been redefined to include ‘two men or two women’, makes manifest the level of manipulation and deception of this ‘consultation’. You are not looking at opposing submissions ‘very carefully’ at all: far greater care is attached to those who favour the change.

Doubtless a large number of members of the public are apathetic concerning the proposed redefinition as they do not consider that it affects them. In the light of Aidan O’Neill’s legal advice, it is evident that it will affect society profoundly, with implications for everyone.

Sadly, the Government’s attitude toward Christians in this matter appears to be the same as that of the Chief Whip toward the police, the only difference being that Andrew Mitchell says it to their face.

Yours sincerely,


Blogger graham wood said...

Excellent comment once again Cranmer. Well said and right on target.
The lady in company with Cameron, Clegg, and other unbelievers simply does not make a case for SSM beyond the crassly naive statement "marriage should be for all couples"
Well, yes, but they do not mean what the vast majority of people undersstand about the nature of marriage.
Her arguments are intellectually, morally, and spiritually incoherent - in a word - rubbish.
In the final analysis the difference between advocates of SSM and Christians on this subject are fundamental and mutually exclusive views on the authority of God's word - the Bible, and the mere opinions of men and women.

Christians know that scripture is informative and correct on every matter it addresses. It discloses knowledge about the nature of God, humanity, salvation, ethics, history, and events to come, and including marriage and gender relationships.
You either believe that or you do not.
Mrs Miller, you must try harder.

21 September 2012 at 10:14  
Blogger Tony B said...

It's rather embarrassing for Cameron, I suppose, when we see what Tories are really like and what disdainful attitudes they hold towards people not of their "class". Apparently Mitchell called the police "plebs" and "morons"..IDS last night expressed a wish to help the unemployed "become better people" hang on, you lose your job (in my case thanks to the policies of IDS's own government) and suddenly you are an inferior human being? What a disgusting bunch.

21 September 2012 at 10:22  
Blogger Roy said...

@ Tony B said...
IDS last night expressed a wish to help the unemployed "become better people" hang on, you lose your job (in my case thanks to the policies of IDS's own government) and suddenly you are an inferior human being? What a disgusting bunch.

If someone is unemployed because he/she are addicted to drugs or alcohol then helping that person off those substances would make him/her a better person. If people are unemployed because they would rather "earn" money through crime then deterring them would make them better people. If people have become addicted to a life on benefits then helping them off benefits would make them better people.

Of course there are people in our society who have a vested interest in the existence of an underclass. Are you one of them?

21 September 2012 at 10:39  
Blogger Tony B said...

Roy-so all those who are unemployed fall into the "underclass" category, do they? Dear oh dear.

21 September 2012 at 11:12  
Blogger Preacher said...

Excellent Blog Dr Cranmer.
What a load of biased tosh this woman comes out with.
Every point you have made is proved true by this short clip.
This whole issue is being used as a smokescreen to hide the problems that this 'coalition' is suffering from, it proves that they have lots of problems, but no answers. What they should learn is when you are in a hole, stop digging.
Many gay people don't even want to have a 'marriage' ceremony, they just want to get on with their lives, just like many heterosexuals who choose to live together.
The fact of the matter is, that you can hire the State Coach & have a ceremony in St Paul's or the Abbey with fancy dress & confetti, but if it is against God's law, He will not be there & He will not bless any mock up rites performed. So it will not be a marriage - Ever! & no Government of any hue or mixture of hues will ever change His mind or make Him obey their laws.

21 September 2012 at 11:43  
Blogger gentlemind said...

lf the legal institution of marriage is redefined it will still not be legally possible for one woman to marry another woman. Marriage will legally only be possible between "Two adults". A woman could only marry "An adult" and only marry as "An adult". The same will of course be true for two men, and one man and one woman. It will not be legally possible for a man to marry a woman.
"To make legally possible the physically impossible (same-sex parents), we will have to make legally impossible the physically possible (physical parents)".

21 September 2012 at 11:57  
Blogger Scott Kerr said...

Could someone explain to me how Her Majesty, as head of the Church Of England, can open Parliament and read out the speech that includes proposals that fundamentally disagree with the Christian dogma. Surely there is a major constitutional issue here.

21 September 2012 at 12:38  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Kerr,

HM Government are proposing to distinguish between 'civil marriage' and 'religious marriage': Her Majesty's position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England is thereby (in theory) not compromised.

21 September 2012 at 12:49  
Blogger Ahab`s Leg said...

Opposition to SSM is not the exclusive property of believers (of any persuasion). The argument is strengthened by also applying a rational approach as Aidan O’Neill`s opinion does.

21 September 2012 at 13:59  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Strange that almost every government under the sun has done nothing to support marriage as it is, until the whole issue gets whipped up by a few militants of a politically powerful minority who have never actually cared about marriage until a few years ago and have been quite content to get on with their lives without all of this trouble.

Then we had the apparent Christian Bliar introducing civil partnerships. The argument for these was the legal equality issue of long term gay couples vs those in marriage (which overlooked those 'straight' couples who have children and live together). The civil partnerships was perhaps a great British compromise. But now that is not enough (!?).

That it is being carried out by a political opportunist Prime Minister and government of an apparent conservative persuasion is even more galling- as are the real reasons behind the move, with chaps, have NOTHING to do with gay equality or whatever it is called.

And that Chief Whip, how arrogant, just like most of this government.

I haven't supported the conservatives for a while and this vid and the legislation is just confirmation to me that real conservatives need to regroup to a different political banner.

21 September 2012 at 14:15  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Food For Thought

When I watched this video I questioned how a minority group ( homosexuals)could have achieved this enormous power to convert a population into giving majority support to ssm under the guise of equality presented by a conservative MP ...the sort of image they use in advertising to sell poisonous food products to your children.

It is not a homosexual issue at play here. Homosexuality is being used politically to break our ancient codes steeped in Christian ethic and what remains of our civilisation. We need to ask ourselves who benefits from this destruction by breaking the cornerstone of our society...then all will be revealed.

21 September 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

graham: "In the final analysis the difference between advocates of SSM and Christians on this subject are fundamental and mutually exclusive views on the authority of God's word - the Bible, and the mere opinions of men and women."

This advocate thinks, as do many people, that the Bible is merely man-made and has no authority. On that basis, it's the mere opinions of men and women versus the mere opinions of men and women.

21 September 2012 at 15:30  
Blogger gentlemind said...


Well said. But...if it is true that homosexuality is being used as a weapon (it is true), then i would hope that you would accept that our present problems would be with us regardless of who had won the previous election. Also, we need to recognise the historical perspective to understand how it is that people no longer know what marriage is. No civilization entertains the notion of same-sex "marriage" without having first lost sight of basic morality. We are saturated with contraception, the killing of new life in the womb, divorce and pornography. The phrases "Sexual orientation" and "Gender identity" emphasise the emotional over the physical. Add to that a normalization of homosexuality, and the notion that we can change sex, and we have a society that has lost touch with the physical reality of their bodies - male and female.

21 September 2012 at 17:33  
Blogger graham wood said...

DanJo said:
"This advocate thinks, as do many people, that the Bible is merely man-made and has no authority. On that basis, it's the mere opinions of men and women versus the mere opinions of men and women."

In reply Danjo. Jesus affirmed that God's Word (the Bible) is "truth." He was not a 'mere man'.

Whose word therefore should we believe, your opinion (to which you have a right - though mistaken) or that of Jesus Christ?

21 September 2012 at 17:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

You all understand that a handful of homosexual men in authority and a number of homosexual militants, all in ,the Inspector numbers them to be about 20,000 are trying to bounce this past us all. Any doubts about that, view Pink News blog site. Try posting a comment questioning ssm, and you will be met with a barrage of angry unbridled hate, and these people will to an individual call you a bigot. They will use foul language, and if you confirm you are Christian, you will receive more vile hate.

If you persevere, they will eventually complain you are hurting them, that you do not understand them, and that being homosexual means they can and will do ANYTING they like, and if they can’t do it now, they will DEMAND it. If you continue further, they will threaten to report you to Stoke Newington police station for homophobia, and have you banned from their site.

It is so pitiful, and it does come across as if their attitude is that their expectations are somehow a form of compensation for their condition. With that attitude, they will NEVER be content. The demands will continue; a bit here a bit there, growing, and we will begin to fear them as a group as so we must do by then. They will have become ‘untouchable’ in the same way 1930’s US gangsters thought they were, and indeed, today still are…

Yet, fellows, if we stand up to them now, they will pack their banners away, drop the rhetoric and go home.

They have civil partnership. Anymore will seriously weaken society further. Next will come demands that homosexual partnerships should be encouraged. They will do this by going to YOUR child’s school to explicitly teach YOUR child how to sodomize or be sodomized by or with another teenager.(…The Terrence Higgins gang already have the literature waiting, and their on-line ‘advice’ site is active, God help us…). And if you try to stop them, they will try and have you arrested for a hate crime. They WILL summon the police, and they will come.That is exactly what’s going on in US education right now.

Let us not go down the same road. Stop now and turn around…

21 September 2012 at 17:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Graham: "Whose word therefore should we believe, your opinion (to which you have a right - though mistaken) or that of Jesus Christ?"

Or that of Mohammed? You may believe what you like of course but you're a minority in this country and you have to live alongside the rest of us. A mere assertion of authority, either from Christians or Muslims, from their various and disparate holy books doesn't oblige the rest of us to fall in line.

21 September 2012 at 17:49  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Aidan O''Neil’s opinion really spells it out I think. This equality lark is almost as sinister as the Nazis' control over people and their thoughts. Where is the tolerance in it? Many homosexuals don't want “gay marriage” but it's being foisted upon everyone whether they like it or not!

It's funny how Call me Dave can do U turns on everything else as soon as night is day, but seems to be sticking like Locktight to this SSM policy.

If it's to support the three parent family then he need not bother because there will soon be three parent families via DNA altering through mitochondrial DNA swapping with a donor to eradicate some genetic illnesses only it wont stop there people will be designing their babies next.

There hasn't been enough information in the mainstream media about the pitfalls of SSM. A lot of people that support it are in the dark about what is really means and are going along with it in blissful ignorance because it has been portrayed as a good thing and is trendy.

21 September 2012 at 17:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "You all understand that a handful of homosexual men in authority and a number of homosexual militants, all in ,the Inspector numbers them to be about 20,000 are trying to bounce this past us all."

No, Inspector. It's a secret and powerful cabal using Cultural Marxism to bring down society, not a bunch of bum bandits in gold lamé hotpants wanting a gypsy-style wedding. Didn't you know?

21 September 2012 at 17:53  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

I hope the coppers turn their guns on the lot of em

21 September 2012 at 18:01  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

I still do not get David Cameron's point about how gay marriage is conservative- if he really believed in marriage he would send a signal via the taxation system.

But he will not, because more and more "straight" people are living together and having children together outside of marriage and in the ultimate extreme end up having multiple "partners" as per the Jeremy Kyle show. I feel for the children of such arrangements, the consequences of which are just coming through into society now.

This is equally as sinful as the gay sexual act, but it is something I think that Christians don't like to discuss because we look like prudes or "Judgemental" against people. Then we see the results on the Jeremy Kyle show.

So perhaps the real issue is tackling the case of getting hetrosexual people back into actually liking marriage and educate people on its merits ?

Or perhaps the children of such arrangements might say to themselves "I always wanted a father and/or mother" and therefore we might see a revival of marriage?

Note- I am not a saint myself and will readily admit in my youth, after the war, I was something of a free spending, free loading, womanizing, fast car, fast women, Monte Carlo, Cad myself (as I said in a thread below).

But thanks to my brother, I did realize that one can turn to God and follow a better path- for him this was Orthodox Judaism and for me Anglican Christianity.

21 September 2012 at 18:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, dear boy. YOU are the minority. The majority of people have no wish to change anything in society. You see, they are content, and do not want your social engineering foisted on them. Ask the chap drinking next to you in any pub. You and other nuisance gays think ssm will go some way to alleviating your angst. Futile hope. It will still be there just as strong the following day...

21 September 2012 at 18:49  
Blogger non mouse said...

For a traditionally 'normal' human being, it is disgusting that women should tout this line. The only upside being that it might encourage us to remember why women were traditionally expected to model the upholding of morality. That would have been because the responsibility for family and home lies initially with women: the childbearers and nurturers are, through Nature, the first to instill love, morality, and education.

Now, however, women are career politicians. That in itself is not bad, however, we are sadly perverted because the system that makes and breaks all our career politicians is corrupt. It has also submitted to the jurisdiction of enemy powers. These women are, therefore, enemies of the society they were born to perpetuate.

It is, then, not unreasonable to suggest that part of their job is to prevent perpetuation of our very species---or, at least, to limit it severely.

In short, this business is probably about Population Control. After all, if governments prefer/require their populations to exercise a Marxist style Pleasure Principle without incurring the responsibilities of family ... then the basic unit of society is successfully destroyed. People who never learn love or responsibility or loyalty to their own --- well, they can easily be controlled by the suppliers of pleasure. Furthermore, the managers can control reproduction itself: they already have in-vitro fertilisation and genetic modification techniques at their disposal. Huxley did have it right.

The scum who eventually surface as masters will thus retain all the power and wherewithal in the planet they have "saved." They won't need very many lower order slaves after all: don't forget they'll have computers.

21 September 2012 at 19:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mouse, inspired post, old thing. When it comes to a home, the woman is everything. It’s a pale effort any other way...

21 September 2012 at 19:29  
Blogger Enemyof the State said...

The homo vote is not big enough to be of interest to politicians and will not win elections. Perhaps 0.2% of the population want to pretend to marry. So the real agenda is the destruction of the family and God given instructions on how we are to live. Liberals are the enemy of mens souls.

After all, if the coalition of the stupid wants votes all it has to do is go anti EU and the election is in the bag. This is a cultural war against normal life by useful idiots and a small minority of utterly immoral people.

21 September 2012 at 19:50  
Blogger graham wood said...

Non Mouse. Good post from you and I'm sure that you have a relevant point in: "Now, however, women are career politicians"

Being career politicians, and like their male counterparts, their general stance is 'My party, right or wrong, irrespective of clear moral principle'
But they should understand that we vote MPs and Ministers into office to govern the UK, not to impose their private ideological beliefs on the rest of us. More so, without a shred of a mandate.

21 September 2012 at 20:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "DanJ0, dear boy. YOU are the minority."

No, YOU are the minority. Blimey, it's a Minority Deathmatch! :)

21 September 2012 at 20:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, you really must come down to the rugby town of Gloucester and continue this discussion in any pub near to the Kingsholm ground on match day. You will surprise and delight the locals with your views, probably...{AHEM}...

21 September 2012 at 21:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Is there an unusual cluster of rugby-playing Christians in your area then? I bet the nights out are a bit disappointing for those of us who are used to, erm, more traditional rugby players!

21 September 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, you really do live in a world of your own. Take a walk outside your door, sniff the air, go to a pub. Talk to people, most with a beer inside them are happy to give you their views...

21 September 2012 at 21:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, I'm middle class. We have a very different take on life than you I think.

21 September 2012 at 21:23  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Morally bankrupt. Intellectually incoherent. Politically impotent. Bland conformity.

The world of Westminster politics. And yet if there was an election tomorrow, I suspect you'd be advocating we vote for more of the same Cranmer.

21 September 2012 at 21:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Saint, recent news. Farage likely to do a deal. The Inspector’s wish is Ideally to stand down in most constituencies apart from a handful UKIP can win, with the Tories standing down in these...

21 September 2012 at 21:46  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@OoIG ...
Is that news meant to gladden me?

21 September 2012 at 22:14  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Office of Inspector General said... "DanJ0, you really do live in a world of your own. Take a walk outside your door, sniff the air, go to a pub. Talk to people, most with a beer inside them are happy to give you their views..."

You realise that if he went to a pub he'd struggle to find anyone to talk to? Most of them are emptier than the CofE pews on a Sunday.

21 September 2012 at 22:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Saint, don’t tell the Inspector your are a screaming leftie. On the subject of pubs, there is one called the Union in Gloucester. When he was last there, perhaps a year or two ago, between Monday and Wednesday, last orders was called at 7:30 pm. Pubs adapt...

21 September 2012 at 22:22  
Blogger len said...

I think Cressida has got it right(21 September 2012 14:56)

Why would those who hold the keys to power be interested in a minority group ie homosexuals, why do homosexuals get preference over other groups?.I suppose there are an amount of Homosexuals holding position of power in the Media, politics, the judiciary etc and this gives them ample opportunity to advance their 'cause'.
But I believe it goes a lot deeper than that those behind the EU believe they have to de-construct our Societies and re-build a 'brave New World' without Christianity or at least without' Biblical Christianity'.
Or alternatively or perhaps consecutively perhaps if enough chaos is caused financial, social,and moral, then perhaps 'a leader' would be sought to lead us out of the quagmire we are sinking into?.
Those advocating SSM and other policies which are leading to further break down of the fabric of our Society are probably only 'useful fools' to those who fully know what their intentions are.

21 September 2012 at 22:27  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@OoIG ... A leftie? How-jolly-dare you!! I guess my closest political allegiance might be described as libertarian. What I am most convinced about is that party politics aren't fit for purpose. Voting for a political party of any persuasion is like choosing between a kick in the gonads followed by a poke in the eye, or a poke in the eye followed by a kick to the gonads. The fact that UKIP are making deals proves they won't be any different with power than any of the others. Clegg's apology should really have been, "I'm sorry we broke our promises. We had absolutely no idea we would get into power". Farage's would be the same (and I like the man).

And most pubs are adapting ... into empty shells for glue sniffers (do people still do that?!) and the like. Interestingly, whilst people point to falling Sunday congregations as evidence for decline of religious belief, nobody points to empty pubs as evidence for decline in drinking!

21 September 2012 at 22:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Saint. Party politics is lamentable and has been for years, but UKIP offers new hope. Once they get a few MPs on the scene, we can expect a sea change. For we have forgotten what it is for principles in a positive manner to be considered.

As for pubs, there used to be a time quite recent when a chain would not consider a tenancy unless a husband and wife applied. One remembers they were well run, and as society ‘advanced’ we had other ‘arrangements’ accepted. Make your own mind up on what happened after that...

21 September 2012 at 23:13  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Would a millers daughter be considered a pleb, or where the millers well to do in the caste system

21 September 2012 at 23:45  
Blogger non mouse said...

BitB@23:45: what follows is simplified, but on track.

Traditional millers might not have been badly off, on the whole ... all people needed bread, and conquerers did not labour. However, the frogules having taken over, non-froggish people were too low to count. The Norman system was racial: by 1069 they'd seized everything we had and divided it among themselves, killed most of the English menfolk, set themselves up as governors, and enslaved the natives.

They rode roughshod over England, looking down from the great height of their castles and horses. Over a few hundred years they gradually needed more of our bowmen and soldiers to fight their wars against continental relations, so they decided to be British. That's when they started to accept the English vernacular and to use it to communicate with us. Henry V (1413-22) made it official. In the interim, monks and the people had kept it going.

The middle class had emerged as tradesmen became wealthier. Even frogules needed bread, cloth, leather, metalwork (Millers, Weavers, Saddlers, Smiths). Social slippage crept in as they mediated and a few frogules married some of them (for their money).

And so it continued, through various social upheavals within the system, until Marx and Engels, who weren't British, produced their foreigners' view of our 'pernicious class system.' However, their followers took advantage of long-standing and righteous resentments, and continue to do so today.

But the roots lie in race, plunder, and froggish assumptions of superiority. And in their fondness for the principle of "divide and conquer." They ever worked to turn what they pleased to call "English" against Celt, and also Celt against Celt...........

22 September 2012 at 03:22  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

non mouse, damned good answer and much more than I had hoped for, yes the Kings controlled the mills

So it must have been a lucrative and valued position in society but the French revolution preceded Marx and Engels, so there has always been a force lurking for such upheavel

Whatever the connection is between France giving the US a statue of liberty may connect the dots of who instigates these revolutions

22 September 2012 at 08:48  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

All great news for UKIP. Just about all my conservative voting friends are going to either vote UKIP or not vote at all. And that includes people who are party members.

22 September 2012 at 09:47  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

On the subject of what Millers are - the name rarely belonged to people who owned mills but to people who worked in them.

However many Millers of northern roots (the majority) derive their name from the Norse word Mjollnir which means hammer or grinder (mealer) - the name also given to Thors hammer and is believed to predate the occupational name..

22 September 2012 at 09:56  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

This is so sad, really, sad.

Can anyone take this video from Blandtown Senior Secondary Fourth Form seriously?

Does this women actually have any real role in the governance of the country? Please tell me she does not.

22 September 2012 at 11:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Regarding the video, this is what the gay thugs are trying to get Boris to make. He had agreed but must have changed his mind and now hides when the pushy pederasts raise the subject. Still, there remains the possibility of capture by these valiant warriors and him tied to a chair with a revolver held to his head...

This splendid couple of minutes by our deeply principled Cameron lackey reminds one of those fly on the wall documentaries set in America where deranged people marry off their pets, usually dogs, with a minister present. Dressed in fine attire, the hapless creatures are then placed in the marital basket in an empty room and left to consummate the union. Lots of ‘Ahs’ and ‘Ooohs’ when one gets up and sniffs the others behind. It should be noted at this stage that not even these whacky reduced people tried to humiliate two animals of the same sex in this manner. Even oddballity has it’s standards...

Maria Miller, shame on you. This won’t retain the conservative vote you know !

22 September 2012 at 11:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Post script. Next doors liberal leaning cat has reminded the Inspector that doggies have rights too you know. Never thought one would hear that sentiment from a cat of all things...

22 September 2012 at 11:52  
Blogger bluedog said...

non mouse @ 03.22, isn't Geoffrey Chaucer a very French sounding name?

22 September 2012 at 11:55  
Blogger bluedog said...

Marie 1797 says, 'If it's to support the three parent family then he need not bother because there will soon be three parent families via DNA altering through mitochondrial DNA swapping with a donor to eradicate some genetic illnesses only it wont stop there people will be designing their babies next.'

Exactly, Marie. We've already got GM food, we clone animals and store their frozen embryoes, it's only a matter of time before we have GM animals and then GM people. We will be told we shouldn't play God but will be unable to resist the temptation to do so.

22 September 2012 at 12:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

More musings from the Inspector...

If Cameron was to change his mind on pressure from real conservatives interested in preserving the SANCTITY of marriage, one wonders if our loyal and ambitious minister for women’s things would change hers too.

If that was the case, the Inspector would take a very dim view of her previously leading people up the garden path. Could well be slipper time young lady, and being sent to your room without supper...

22 September 2012 at 12:08  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, the answer to the political water-torture in favour of SSM is for a private member's bill to be introduced in favour of the measure. A private members bill would force the issue.

If the Australian experience during the past week is anything to go by, any bill proposing introduction of SSM would be defeated in the Commons by a margin of two to one. Two bills in support of SSM were introduced in Australia last week and both were decisively defeated. The homosexual lobby is in mourning.

Now Dave's whips must be keeping him in touch with the real position in the Conservative Party on SSM, and this communicant bets that its pretty grim for the pro-SSM lobby. So all this talk by new girls trying to suck up like Maria Miller is just empty posturing to keep the Pink vote warm.

Dave wouldn't have the guts to allow a conscience vote on SSM, he would be completely humiliated, yet again.

22 September 2012 at 12:13  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


Oh I can't resist fuelling this beautiful conspiracy: Chaucer's family were possibly orginally foreign (but he was born in Cheapside).

You know something else about Chaucer - he served as a "diplomat" to the continent, *and* the French "diplomat" Froissart was especially flattering about his poetry.

Everyone in the social elite in England spoke French; you don't see English overtake it in non-Latin civil documents (like letters between mayors and that kind of thing) until the very end of the 14th Century, and French persists amongst the aristocracy well into the 15th.

22 September 2012 at 13:09  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Bluedog said,
We've already got GM food, we clone animals and store their frozen embryoes, it's only a matter of time before we have GM animals and then GM people. We will be told we shouldn't play God but will be unable to resist the temptation to do so.

This issue is only one part of the overall agenda of establishing satan's rule over the world. Whenever we see a country like Burma coming in from the cold the first thing they are told to do is legalize abortion and homosexuality. When we look at all the politically correct notions (homosexuality, climate change, population control, abortion etc.) we are told that it is in the interests of tolerance but the end result is the destabilization of society, addiction and death. These so called political issues are the weapons of spiritual warfare by satan and his legions. The return of the Jews to Israel was the beginning of the period prophesied in Daniel chapter 9 and we have been told that there will be a time when satan will rule on the Earth prior to the second coming of Our Lord. We have to fight it of course but our efforts will be sidelined by traitors who call themselves Christian. I don't fancy their chances on the day of judgement and if the signs of the times tell us anything it is that the time will not be too long in the future. St. Paul rightly said "they will prefer lies to the truth".

22 September 2012 at 13:28  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

There's a consultation here
if you're interested. I know this is straying off His Grace's topic but if satan is going to reign then we might as well do as much as we can to stop him.

22 September 2012 at 14:19  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Nowhere man, like the Norse input with the hammer, which is also the origin of the gavel

I am used to associating Thors hammer with Smithies, Anvils and the like, never thought of the millner connect

You see, when the hammer works with metal and sparks fly, it fits much more with the a gavel and law

For judgements ought to made in accordance with law, not precedent, lest the common-law spark be extinguished

And a judgement made in presumption of law does damage, does it not

22 September 2012 at 14:24  
Blogger non mouse said...

Oh indeed, Mr. bluedog @ 11:55; it is as AiB says @ 13:09.

Chaucer lived c 1343-1400, and it's also worth remembering his connection with the Plantagenet court as an 'esquire,' even as a soldier (who was captured and held prisoner in France c 1360). Furthermore, Chaucer's wife Philippa (m. 1366) was the sister of John of Gaunt's third wife, Katherine Swynford (de Roet; m. 1396).

The veteran campaigner Gaunt (1340-1399) was, of course, a son of Edward III (1312-1377) -- father of Henry IV (1366-1413), and ultimately Father of our present House of Lancaster (via Katherine and their progeny, the Beauforts). Gaunt exercised regency during the minority years of his nephew, Richard II (1367-c1400). Richard, who became king when he was only 10, was the son of Edward's elder boy, The Black Prince: another warrior.

Oh he saw a lot, did that Chaucer.. for the son of a vintner whose family had probably been in Ipswich (a wool town) for a few generations. According to Crow and Leland in the Riverside the family had also been involved in customs service. Then, "On 8 June 1374 Edward III appointed Chaucer controller of the export tax, or customs, on wool, sheepskins, and leather, in the port of London..." Apparently the government/campaigners profitted greatly from the wool trade (Intro. xv-xx).**

That wasn't all. The poet was also "a justice of the peace, a member of Parliament, the clerk of the king's works in charge of building and repair at ten royal residences, and a forest official"(xv). So eat your heart out Ms. Miller: while never, never, forgetting the unpleasant picture of Chaucer's Miller....

[[The more cupidity changes, the more it stays the same, is what I say.]]

**Crow, Martin M. and Virginia E. Leland, Introduction. The Riverside Chaucer 3rd Ed. Ed. Lary D. Benson. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987.

22 September 2012 at 17:09  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Marie, I've registered to be consulted.

22 September 2012 at 22:06  
Blogger bluedog said...

Thank you non-mouse @ 17.09, very scholarly. One notes that Geoffrey Chaucer's son Thomas was a maternal grandparent of John de la Pole, who married Elizabeth of York from whom the House of Windsor descends.

It is indeed as AiB says @ 13.09, 'French persists amongst the aristocracy well into the 15th.' and well beyond. Couldn't resist throwing that particular grenade!

Dear non mouse, in the context of the recent discovery of a skeleton with certain spinal characteristics under a supermarket car-park in Leicester, one thing utterly intrigues. HM Queen is apparently custodian of the bones of two male children found in the Tower many years ago, but denies the opportunity for these bones, which are held in Westminster Abbey, to be DNA tested.

Why would that be?

22 September 2012 at 22:09  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Shacklefree @ 13.08. Agreed. The prospect terrfies.

22 September 2012 at 22:12  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Good. Altering human DNA is a very serious matter. Everyone should make an effort to look at this and make their views known.

22 September 2012 at 22:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"under a supermarket car-park in Leicester"

Not that it particularly matters but the carpark is a small space between some historical buildings used by solicitors and a council building. It's at the back of the Cathedral in an historical and attractive part of the old city centre. As carpark-located graveyards go, it's a little more salubrious than the disabled area of JS Sainsbury.

23 September 2012 at 07:50  
Blogger non mouse said...

Why, Mr. Bluedog @ 22:09 ... I can't answer for HM – the very Duke of Lancaster!!! But may the bones not RIP? As to the Lancastrian story ... the complexity of The Wars of the Roses intervenes.

Here’s an attempt to simplify from where we left off:

Throughout, it’s important that the Beauforts were legitimized Lancastrians: courtesy of Gaunt and Katherine.

The mainline Lancastrians are:
Henry IV (Gaunt's son),
--> Henry V (1387-1422); m. Katherine of France
--> Henry VI(1421-71) ... boy king, mentally unstable: His wife, Margaret of Anjou, maintained the Lancastrian side to some extent. (HVI, btw, was also Duke of Cornwall). His reign was divided by the Wars of the Roses; so H VI r. 1422-61 and 1470-71.
He was murdered in the Tower: Richard III is Prime Suspect.


The Yorkists descend from Gaunt’s brother Edmund Langley: 1st. Duke of York (1341-1402).
–>2nd Duke ‘Aumerle’ (1373-1415)
->3rd Duke Richard (1411-60)
–> Edward IV (r. 1461-70 and 1471-1483): he’s the one who shared H VI’s reign. EIV m. Elizabeth Woodville
–> Edward V and Richard Duke of York d. 1483: Princes in the Tower–possibly HM’s skeletons.
–> Elizabeth of York: E IV’s daughter.

3rd Duke also provided your other possible skeleton:
–> R III ( r. 1483-85; E IV's brother and Prime Suspect for killing the boys in the Tower.

E IV died in 1483,leaving Richard as guardian to his sons. The princes were put in the Tower to protect them from other conspirators, and Richard then campaigned to claim the throne. He suggested that E IV was illegitimate, and that the marriage to Woodville was illegal. He was declared king in June of 1483.

23 September 2012 at 09:00  
Blogger non mouse said...

Sorry about the length of what follows, but I have trouble summarizing the story of a woman who was a wife, mother, and Queen Mother: and the ultimate politician.

Margaret Beaufort (<>c1443-1509), was great-granddaughter of Gaunt and Swynford. She it was who enabled the end of the Wars of the Roses, and who began to resumed the union of Britain that King Alfred had initiated...or some would say King Arthur!

Her father, 1st Duke of Somerset, died 1444. Her grand-uncle, Cardinal Beaufort (1374-1447) was cousin to Thomas Chaucer (3 times Speaker of the House of Commons). In 1430, Thomas’s daughter Alice m. her third husband, William de la Pole (1396-1450)-4th Earl/1st Duke of Suffolk, and also an ally of Beaufort’s.

As guardian of Margaret B, William married her to his son, John de la Pole,in 1450. However, William turned traitor and was killed that year, and Henry VI had Margaret’s marriage dissolved in 1453 (the children never co-habited-there were rules about that kind of marriage).

In 1455, Henry VI had 12-year-old Margaret re-married to his own half-brother, Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond. Her biographers, Jones and Underwood, speculate that the then childless King favored Edmund as his heir (36-38).* Tudor died in 1426 however, when 13-year-old Margaret was 6/7 months pregnant. Henry, the new Earl of Richmond, was born in 1457 at Pembroke Castle, the stronghold of his Welsh uncle, Jasper Tudor.

The vicissitudes of war separated mother and son ... and wife and husbands. Margaret re-married three more times, and always worked to protect Henry’s landed inheritance.

Nevertheless, when H VI was briefly restored in 1471, he is said to have “miraculously foretold” his nephew Henry’s accession, and “the young boy’s role in healing the divisions of war” (J&U**). When E IV subsequently returned and murdered all her other kinsmen, Margaret persuaded Jasper and Henry to escape Pembroke and sail for France. Nevertheless, she took her place at court with her fourth husband, Thomas Stanley (m. 1472), who supported EIV - however promiscuous, profligate, and Burgundian that monarch was.
*Jones, Michael K, and Underwood,Malcolm G. The King’s Mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby. Cambridge: CUP, 1992.

** Jones and Underwood 51-52 cite Bishop John Fisher, Oration 269.


23 September 2012 at 09:08  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Danjo, knowing Leicester Council and the current tempo of this government (who are yet again launching new promises of legalised theft), I suspect that the potential remains of Richard III will be given a hefty car parking fine, no?

23 September 2012 at 09:25  
Blogger non mouse said...

cont'd... "who began to resume" (sigh).

After E IV died (1483), Margaret and Stanley conspired with Elizabeth Woodville first to try and protect the Princes in the Tower. Failing that, they arranged a marriage between E IV’s daughter, Elizabeth of York, and Henry. Once Richard III’s reign devolved into terror (and Margaret’s camp might have helped the devolution by spreading propaganda), the return of Henry as Future King (redolent of King Arthur) became a thing supported. Thence to the Battle of Bosworth (1485).

Once Margaret's little boy Henry VII joined the Houses of York and Lancaster in marriage (1486), hope for peace in the realm began to materialize. Some say Margaret watched Elizabeth closely, to avoid the immoralities of Edward’s day; she worked in every way to optimise her son’s reign.

It is interesting that H VII and Elizabeth had a son called Arthur, who died young in 1502. They also had a daughter, Margaret, who married the Scottish King James IV in 1503 at Stirling Castle–so preparing the ground for union of the thrones of England, Wales, and Scotland. As the Royal Website told it in 2005, that marriage led “in 1603 to the succession of a Stewart (now with a change of spelling) to the throne of England.”***

Even after all we went through with the extra froggie influence of the Stuarts, that is the hard-won union our enemies would have us lose. That’s why they give the Tudors such a bad rap.

*** accessed 9/28/05.

PS: The other John de la Pole (1462-87) was the son of Margaret’s first husband (after he grew up). The second John became 1st Earl of Lincoln and R III’s heir (Richard was his maternal uncle). That set continued to claim the throne all the way to 1525, when the last one died at a Battle of Pavia.

PPS: And those de la Poles.... I checked Wiki. They seem to have arisen as wealthy wool merchants from Hull, who began to finance Edward III before 1366.


23 September 2012 at 09:32  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Interesting thought is that I think it is the Church of England would be responsible for burying a Monarch, even though Richard III would presumably have been Roman Catholic?

23 September 2012 at 09:40  
Blogger TigerO said...

On the subject of SSM, when this was presented my dear wife, who although not highly educated, is very street wise said to me don't seek clarification on the detail look for what is hidden because this is a ruse to distract.

Like the juggler whose quest is to get you to focus on him whilst you are deceived by other actions this is probably the case with SSM.

Remember this is a coalition of the extremes; right of centre and far left in bed together. The right must be seen by the left to be giving some ground to their followers. What better left value than SSM.

This may well be a gamble by the CONS, and as has played out in Australia, the electoral reps have come out and slapped it down.

Going forward this same deception could play out with the CONS saying to the electorate; When we had a coalition with the left where was their real concern? Was it really with the economy, or peoples jobs, or really making progress repairing the damage of 13 years of Labour rule. No it was concern for the rights of small minorities. There you have their values; not the welfare of the people of this country but the perceived equality of a tiny proportion of the people of this country.

23 September 2012 at 11:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"There you have their values; not the welfare of the people of this country but the perceived equality of a tiny proportion of the people of this country."

There's probably around 3 million of us. A little less then twice the number of people who attend Church of England services every month.

23 September 2012 at 11:36  
Blogger bluedog said...

Excellent posts, non mouse @ 0900, 0908, 0925 and 0932, thank you for the time and trouble to which you have gone.

'That set' had a strong claim the throne,and Henry VIII went to the trouble of executing Edmund, son of John de la Pole, presumably to prevent a rival faction emerging in England. A look at the Plantagenet Roll shows where else trouble may have potentially arisen, through the Essex (Yorkist) line, for example. Richard III's aunt, Isabel of Cambridge, Countess of Essex was a player although not to the extent of Margaret of Beaufort. Her sons were very active on the Yorkist side and their line did not become extinct.

HM Queen gives the impression of being much more than just a constitutional monarch relying on the Parliament for her position. She has a keen sense of history and has always maintained extremely close and cordial relations with the Dukes of Norfolk and Beaufort, both heavily infused with Plantagenet blood. It is as though Elizabeth II feels the weight of history, and senses that the old families are always watching her, judging the performance of the House of Windsor.

The Duke of Northumberland is another Plantagenet descendant, and a kinsman of the Duchess of Cambridge too, which explains Kate's rapid acceptance by the Firm. Binding the House of Windsor back into the Plantagenet fold may have been a soothing balm after the Spencer disaster.

Those who mocked Kate with cries of 'Doors to manual' had no idea of the statecraft running through her veins. For the sake of the Monarchy we must hope that Kate has all the skill and tenacity of Margaret of Beaufort.

23 September 2012 at 12:12  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


I note the probably there. 3 million is rather hard to substantiate, and relies on there being vastly more undisclosed gay people than people who are out. The ONS puts the figure at around 480,000 - which I will happily concede almost certainly does not account for the total. Nevertheless, if you're right, it means roughly 5 in 6 gay people are not "out".

The CofE is pretty much the inverse: about 1.7 million attend regularly (a little over 3 times the number of out gay people), with 3 million attending at Christmas (perhaps to correlate with the "once at boarding school" and "youthful indiscretion" types), and a whopping 40% of the country happy to "out" themselves as members of the CofE. 60% "out" themselves as Christians.

23 September 2012 at 15:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Belfast, there exists in the centre of Gloucester a gay pub, don’t know of any others in the rugby playing city, so we’ll ignore any competition. Been gay a couple of years now. Not far from the ‘Mouse And Wheel’, the Inspector’s alma mater.

It has large windows ideal for pressing your nose up and peering in, street urchin style. Never more than fifteen people in there on view at any one time. There is a back room and of course toilets where a few might spend time {...AHEM...}, but even so, it’s a poor show for a community that considers itself so numerous and damned self important...

23 September 2012 at 17:17  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Fascinating discussion, non mouse and bluedog.

On the topic of our beloved Kate, I strongly suspect that behind the fashionista façade there lurks a spine of steel and a briliant, Machiavellian (in a good way) mind. I wager that Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge will one day do more than anyone else for the monarchy. The Plantagenet connection, now matter how faint, adds further fuel to my conviction.

23 September 2012 at 17:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AIB: "I note the probably there. 3 million is rather hard to substantiate, and relies on there being vastly more undisclosed gay people than people who are out. The ONS puts the figure at around 480,000 - which I will happily concede almost certainly does not account for the total. Nevertheless, if you're right, it means roughly 5 in 6 gay people are not "out"."

Ah AIB, I see that you're following a well-worn path as far as I am concerned. I don't really know what I do to trigger it but it's quite funny in its own way. The later stages ought to be quite interesting with you.

But anyway, you do well to note the "probably" there because it wasn't put there by accident and I haven't tried to slide an argument by changing its terms like the times when I've said "I note that [...]" to you as you did so.

There's been a number of times when the number of gay people in the UK has been raised here and I've been quite explicit about the difficulties of doing sex surveys. Hence, I always make it obvious that the number I use is very rough. The last time I talked about the IHS and its issues was with the Inspector as I recall.

23 September 2012 at 18:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Been gay a couple of years now."

Is that a weight off your shoulders now? ;)

23 September 2012 at 18:02  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 September 2012 at 18:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

You are blatantly misrepresenting the Inspector, you wicked poof !

23 September 2012 at 18:20  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 September 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger non mouse said...

Regrets... Just saw serious Typo ---Edmund Tudor died in 1456, of course.
The deletions are mine--I edit.

Ah well, Mr. bluedog @ 12:12 the Spencers take us further back and to the Welsh Marches: Edward II and the 'She-wolf of France' - Isabella; her boyfriend Mortimer; Edward's (possible) boyfriends Gaveston, Despenser; Etc. And, of course, froggishness remains constant.

That, however, does return us even closer to strand because the whole business is explicitly fraught with the spectre of sodomy; its disruptive effect on marriage and inheritance (as if that weren't messy enough); and its disruption of that other marriage between rulers and those ruled. The trouble is nothing new, and it seems to flourish most blatantly where power is most corrupt and the battles cause most damage.

Ours is the first era in which anyone's tried to force it on the entire population, though. Talk about harrassment: What a demoralising power-play this is!

23 September 2012 at 18:48  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


I took your comment primarily for what seemed to me its rhetoric: that the CofE was a smaller minority than gay people in England. You were responding to a comment that suggested that gays being in a minority precluded the extent to which they are (perceived as being) influential. The manner of your response, I assume was to infer that the CofE exercises influence over politics despite it also being a minority in terms of regular attendance. Had you cited the 480,000 figure, with caveats, I'd have been inclined to think that was the central point, but as you explicitly suggested that the projected 3 million figure exceeded the 1.7 million church goers, I thought it only fair to compare like with like: self-identification with self-identification, and identification through behaviour with identification through behaviour. As I noted, the CofE is very much the inverse of gay people, demographically speaking.

It is certainly "interesting" to me. Firstly in an academic kind of way as to why that might be. I can adduce a number of possibilities, and imagine it to be an aggregate of them. The really interesting thing would be the extent to which various explanations hold true. Without further research, though, it's largely guesswork. Secondly, in a generally ethical sense as to how groups and politicians negotiate representing the wishes of a group that, to all intents, does not self-identify with membership.

23 September 2012 at 19:05  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Dr Belfast,

I wonder how many would call themselves C of E if we had a German style tax (see thread above)?

23 September 2012 at 19:56  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Lord Lavendon:

Very few I'd imagine.

23 September 2012 at 20:15  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah Mr Belfast (soon to be Dr),

Oh dear, I was expecting some wit in reply. But you are quite right old chap. And good to read that you are fellow Orthodox Anglican, rare bread nowadays you know.

23 September 2012 at 22:36  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"Orthodox Anglican"

Orthodox, catholic, and Christian; Anglican by accident so long as it combines with the first three (and not particularly Anglican in practice these days anyway - CofI is not the CofE).

"Oh dear, I was expecting some wit in reply."

Sorry to disappoint m'lud. Not enough bananas to keep my brain active today :)

23 September 2012 at 23:20  
Blogger John Chater said...

An elegant waste of time and ink Your Grace. I imagine the charming lady has received thousands of such letters and no doubt not one of them would have so much as broken the ice.

If the proposal were genuinely only to apply in civil registration marriages then who, I wonder, would really care (and if people in such a setting want prayers and hymns, then why not)? But clearly, as soon as the law is changed a predictable human rights challenges to religious institutions will follow. This is, of course, what many of us suspect is at the heart of it. Not a plea from a desperate minority to be treated as human equals, but a pressure group campaign which has at its heart the disempowerment of organised religion (crackpot atheists like Dawkins and Gervais seem to become almost physically aroused when banging on about gay rights).

Anglicans will obey the law when it changes, the Catholic Church may well stop marrying people, but the interesting scenario will be attempts to enforce marriage 'equality' in mosques. That will be a bun fight. In fact it may be the unwillingness on the part of government to confront and compel the Muslim community along gay marriage lines that saves unwilling Christianity and Judaism from following suit. Now there's an irony.

24 September 2012 at 13:18  
Blogger Jon said...

LOL - you beat me to it, Danj0.

Inspector, I know you're a consummate free marketeer so I have no doubt, when arguing with the people in your local pub (as you are apparently wont to do) you will say that a gay bar in Gloucester that is self sustaining deserves its place provided its pays its taxes etc. Far be it for an upstanding, sorry poor choice of words, moral paragon (?) such as yourself to concern yourself with the goings on therein. Leave that to those of us with stronger constitutions and less than 80 years on the clock.

I do think your use of Rugby players as an analogy is a poor one. Gareth Thomas is a lovely chap, and I'm sure, given the antics of most rugby players, he is not alone! Certainly the ones I know seem very relaxed about gay people.

24 September 2012 at 15:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Jon, not only does the Inspector approve of gay bars, he believes they really are a necessity now that gays are in from the cold and wish to meet the fellow minded.

The point being made was that DanJ0 has so inflated the number of LGBT people in the country to such a ludicrous level, by six times according to Belfast, that merely walking down the street and peering into what is probably the only gay pub in Gloucester city centre, reveals a somewhat sparse patronage that belies the aforementioned numerals. Talk about a shot in the dark and a very generous one at that.

As for rugby players, one is almost impressed by how gentlemanly they come across as individuals. Rugby of course is a game for thugs played by gentlemen, the direct opposite to soccer. However, put two or more of them together and watch the herd mentality descend. For example, local rugby types have set themselves a burger challenge. The burgers alone are 4.5 lb in weight and there are unbelievably fries there as well. Of course, no one can eat that much, and it’s a shocking waste of food in this man’s book. Face to face criticism of course will not be forthcoming as the Inspector has no wish to be thrown into the Severn…

24 September 2012 at 18:18  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


I wasn't accusing DanJ0 of inflating the figures. The 3 million figure comes from a 2005 report collated by the Treasury to anticipate the impact of civil partnerships. It was largely a projected guess - and one that frankly seems to have been on the generous side (especially as it it almost certainly not the case that the number of "out" gay people is anything like 3 million - and I can't imagine that there's a large demand for civil partnerships for people "in the closet").

The most comprehensive survey to date by the ONS puts the figure at around 480,000 (again, a projection - but this time from a large survey base). It also has its flaws - and almost certainly underestimates the real figure, but it is a good benchmark figure for the number of "out" gay people in the UK. That's why I said that if we accept the validity of the 3 million figure, it follows that the majority (5 in 6) of gay people are not "out".

I'm afraid I have no idea how this bears on the popularity of gay pubs. I know straight people who go to gay bars, and at least one gay person who refuses to go at all.

24 September 2012 at 18:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 September 2012 at 19:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, Kinsey put the figure a 10% which, assuming 45 million adults in the UK, is quite a lot more. Of course, it matters what one means by being gay and it also depends, as I have told you before, how one responds to a face to face or telephone interview at the household level. I wouldn't answer "gay" to some random interviewer, that's for sure. However, I almost certainly would to an anonymous survey. All that said, the actual figure is in some ways irrelevant. For the purposes of the point, I'm happy for the figure to be a million i.e. 2% of the adult population. If there are 45,000,000 adults in the UK then why should we give a flying feck about the opinions or expectations of a mere 1,700,000 who can be bothered to go to a Church of England service once a month if the numbers matter so much in issues of equality?

24 September 2012 at 19:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, Inspector, none of the surveys would count the people who are in denial about their sexual orientation. At least plus one to the actual Gloucester number, I think. :)

24 September 2012 at 19:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Belfast. The Inspector is actually against quantifying the number of LGBT in the country. If that is the way individuals wish to define themselves, it is no one else’s business, certainly not the state. Does it really matter how many there are. They are a small minority, like those interested in railways, such as this man.

DanJ0. A nice round 10% eh ? How damn convenient. A figure plucked from the air with the aid of a wet finger. What would be a more useful figure is to count the number of gay pains in the arse who want to change society. Rather like the paedophiles who want more sympathy for their condition. Every other homosexual seems to want nothing to do with gay extremism...

24 September 2012 at 21:11  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah, Mr Belfast,

Keep at it with those bananas, they are good for you, you know.

24 September 2012 at 21:35  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Wrangling over demographics aside, why stop at the CofE - the Inspector isn't a member. If you take church-going as a whole it's about 15% of the population who regularly attend some form of Christian worship. Around a further 10% go infrequently, with the numbers boosting abnormally higher at Christmas. All in all, though, I'd not say that 15%, let alone 25% is insignificant.

I agree, though, that population size does not determine equality law - but anyone with a newspaper could tell you that. There are quite a number of comparable ethnic and religious minorities in terms of population, but it's hardly been the case that each one of them has received the same legislative influence.

24 September 2012 at 22:52  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Lord Lavendon:

I shall. How's the fishing going?

24 September 2012 at 22:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hear Hear Belfast !

Powerful second paragraph, my man.

24 September 2012 at 22:55  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah Belfast,

Did my mind meander onto that subject as well If so I apologise, but yes, getting into one's waders and walking hip deep into the crystal clear waters of some of the nations best fishing areas, well there is nothing quite like it!

24 September 2012 at 23:04  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 September 2012 at 23:17  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah, Belfast,

On the topic, some good points, especially your last paragraph.

Take the 2,000,000 plus followers of Islam in our Isles, for example, and this might upset those who argue that the Church of England settlement be swept away for a secular state. I would suggest something less agreeable to liberal minded people
,homosexuals and atheists would fill the void.

(information From Wikipedia) :

A 2009 survey of the attitudes of British Muslims found

* 40% of British Muslims want Sharia in the United Kingdom and 28% of British Muslims want Britain to be an Islamic state.

*61% of the questioned agree that homosexuality should be illegal,

*31 % agree that Muslim conversion should be forbidden and punishable by death.

* Majority of British Muslim have strongly conservative views on moral issues such as extra-marital sex.They differ dramatically from the views held by the rest of the British population.

*68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam.

24 September 2012 at 23:20  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Lord Lavendon:

The issue of how one decides which interest groups to favour in politics has become an enduring concern of mine. Not just how one chooses which groups get privileged in the legislation - for, whatever their aims, the cascading nature of equality of laws means that one group or another wins out eventually - but who one listens to. Do we consider Stonewall the pre-eminent voice for the gay community? The House of Bishops the chief voice of the CofE? The Muslim Council of Britain the voice of British Islam?

These didn't used to be questions that had far-reaching implications. There was an understanding that if you wished to push a special cause, one had only to convince one's neighbours of its justice.

There was a time - not even that long ago - when you could rely on the election promises of an MP to mean something. The electoral mandate was not an piece of rhetoric - it was the lifeblood of British politics. Sadly no more - and it's for that reason I favour more direct democracy, even though it is a comparitively novel addition to domestic politics. Not, actually, because I envisage winning on a lot of issues as a result, but because it changes the way that the country understands itself. With the electoral mandate comes an understanding by those who lose that what matters is the will of the electorate. Doesn't mean people stopped campaigning, and for some issues it was more of a temporary stay.

Instead of interest groups campaigning - instead of emancipation movements and civil rights movements - we have dissonant groups each being accorded leverage commensurate with the noise of their advocacy, without any thought as to how the outcomes might interface.

If we actually took many of the claims to equality at the value they are ascribed, it would be impossible to see how we could muster any sort of argument against incorporating the increasingly disparate desires of interest groups.

What we have now though is an essentially artificial system that is increasingly beholden only unto itself. We've all heard politicians mutter that even an election couldn't overturn certain pieces of equality and human rights legislation. When did this happen? When did the electorate so blithely sell its birthright?

No, the answer is more debate, and a return to politics - what we have now is the veneer of it. What I suspect terrifies politicians is not that they would lose a popular vote on gay marriage, or on withdrawal from the EU, but that it would expose the fundamental disconnect between the ideals embodied in modern legislation and the electorate. It's not that gay marriage wouldn't pass - I suspect it would - it's that in the process, it would be obvious that a sizeable proportion of the country was opposed to the cast of Westminster. Likewise, an In/Out referendum would probably, I suspect, narrowly keep us in - but Euroscepticism (or EUscepticism) would be demonstrated not as the last resort of the "mere" minorities, but a substantial political view.

And if it makes us uncomfortable that the electorate should be so divided we have only the example of our forebears: convince them otherwise in elections where MPs actually stand on principle and on policy, rather than on a coloured tie.

25 September 2012 at 00:05  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


25 September 2012 at 00:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, I don't actually think the 10% figure is reasonable and I'm well aware of the criticism of Kinsey over the years. Personally, I think 5% is more likely as a figure for people who have had consensual homosexual activity and a smaller number, perhaps half of that, who are residually gay. But we don't really know because of the nature of the thing. I'll say again though that the true figures don't really matter that much to the point. You'll note that there was no argument about The orignal "tiny proportion" even though the 1.5% figure from the ONS is hardly tiny in the scheme of things. No, the content of the subsequent argument is not that important as along as an argument can be had about it at the moment, it seems. But hey.

25 September 2012 at 03:06  
Blogger len said...

I think the UK should wake up to what is happening today.

When God judges a Nation he doesn`t have to sent lightning bolts(although He sometimes does)He merely withdraws and the forces of evil surge forward.
The UK is either apathetic towards God or aggressively anti -God so God being the gentleman He is withdraws.
What is coming is directly the responsibility of lukewarm Christians and those who aggressively wish to remove God from our Society.

The irony is that those who wish to create a' Godless Society' will find themselves under one of the harshest 'religious' regimes that ever existed .

25 September 2012 at 07:58  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah Belfast,

You raise an interesting set of issues and get to the nub of the current disconnect with politics and society.

We have been balkanised, to the extend on the Mitchell thread, I was tempted to refer to the "toff community".

I would add that as this is a big theme of mine too, so as it will doubtless crop up again, keep me powder dry so to speak.

I agree that equality rights have lead to this big scramble to the top of the tree.

Other factors are also :

1)Devolution,specifically the lack of a devolved English Parliament and that time and time again the London Parliament seems to be more and more of a colonial regime, where Scottish members legislate for England, when it does not effect their own.

2) The European Union - which speaks for itself.

Of course the solutions are many and varied, but as you say politics has to get back to the way it used to be (I would add my pet theme of true House of Lord's reform), I would add, to have a devolved English Parliament and to withdraw from the EU.

25 September 2012 at 11:10  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 September 2012 at 12:42  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I wrote my rambling post in a less than dispassionate manner. I'd sum up its points thus:

The present realm of "politics" thrives on making us think of ourselves as balkanised members of whatever tribe or creed we identify with. As far as I can see, it does this in order to create the illusion that the political establishment alone can provide for our wants and needs. Perversely, in the creed of diverse-equality anyone who opposes a concession in a prominent fashion becomes valuable to the political elite, who can point at them as an example of why we cannot let the "People" decide on matters such as equality.

It is a paradox, but they must be made out to be a minority on the one hand: "mere" bigots who are at odds with modern Britain; and on the other, a serious political threat with the power to de-rail the march of Progress if they are not disenfranchised.

Anyone with a modicum of sense would see that if both things were true, their exposure at the ballot box (either through seriously made manifesto promises or referenda) would quickly neuter them. But as I said, what terrifies our masters is not that they would lose in such an arena - but that the game would be up for a large number of the precious ideologies of the political elite.

25 September 2012 at 12:44  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah Mr Belfast

Ramble away with passion... a good hallmark in a man.

Good points as usual :

I have often wondered if this is a cock up or a conspiracy?

Personally I am warming to the idea, more and more of a mid 19th century political system than ever- a weaker party system, with MPs being more than social workers or lobby fodder, a powerful house of Lords (about 120 hereditary Peers elected by fellow Peers- it happened with Irish Lords and Bishops according to seniority only) and a behind the scenes Monarchy who could bash a few heads together.

Bring back Palmerston, Salisbury and Disraeli!

25 September 2012 at 13:25  
Blogger PDoodle100 said...

God laughs... and weeps.

Nevertheless, it seems he will ensure that the wheels of Mr Cameron's chariot get so embedded in the mud of the river that he and his army will still be stuck there when the waters come flooding back.

Hubris >>> nemesis.

27 September 2012 at 09:03  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older