Saturday, May 25, 2013

Eric Pickles: "The only way is Wessex!"


In a riposte to the absurd decision by Labour-run Radstock Town Council in Somerset to ban the Cross of St George (in order 'not to offend Muslims' - no, this is not a joke), Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has responded today by encouraging the flying of all local flags with pride. He has no time at all for ‘stupid municipal officialdom’, as he calls it. And all reasonable people would concur: it undermines community relations and negates national culture. (Has a Muslim ever complained about the flying of the flag of England? If so, Col. Bob Stewart MP has a message for them).

As part of its programme of recognising and celebrating the traditional institutions of England, the Government has decided to mark Wessex Day today by flying the Flag of Wessex over departmental buildings.

Wessex is the kingdom which gave birth to the united English nation. It dates back to the 6th Century, stretching across southern England. Wessex was the dominant kingdom of Anglo-Saxon England, its name deriving from the Old English form for ‘West Saxon’. Wessex kings, such as Alfred the Great, fought off Danish incursions, and by the early 10th century, the Wessex kings had become kings of England. This continuing connection with the Monarchy is reflected by Prince Edward holding the title of Earl of Wessex.

Today also marks the Feast of St Aldhelm, the patron saint of Wessex.

His Grace understands that Radstock Town Council has now reversed its position after a public outcry, including from Muslim groups. There has also been controversy over a Preston housing association banning a front door from displaying a smartly-painted St George’s cross. That needs reversing also.

In April, the Government formally acknowledged the continuing role of England's traditional counties in English public life. Previously, many parts of Whitehall and municipal officialdom shunned these ancient counties, many of which date back over a thousand years. This move complements the Government’s abolition of unelected regional government in England, based on the European Union’s ‘NUTS1’ administrative boundaries. The celebration today of Wessex reflects how the Government is championing the long-standing, traditional localities of England.

Eric Pickles said: “Recent events remind us that we are stronger as a society when we celebrate the ties that bind us together. In the last week, stupid municipal officialdom has sought to ban the English flag, harming not helping community relations. I want to send a strong signal – we should fly our flags with pride. Whatever one’s class, colour or creed, let’s have pride in Britain’s local and national identities. It’s right to celebrate the kingdom that paved the way for a united England: for today, the only way is Wessex.”

Derek Pickett, Chairman of the Wessex Society said: "It took a thousand years for the Wyvern to fly free, may it once again inspire those who gaze up to it and bless those who toil beneath it."

You know.. if a political party were to champion St George's Day (which happens also to be Shakespeare's birthday) as a national holiday in England, it would assist the inculcation of a national identity and remind people of the dominant culture and values. It might even be worth a few votes..

156 Comments:

Blogger Peter D said...

I agree we should celebrate our local, national heritage and take pride in our culture.

Does anyone know if there is a Christian patron Saint for the United Kingdom?

25 May 2013 at 00:56  
Blogger Ian G said...

Such is the standard of contemporary education that, on the painted front door, the Cross is upside-down. Sigh.

25 May 2013 at 02:43  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

This is just an administration ploy to take the heat off muslims,they will try anything now to divert the public attention ,from pretending to be on the side of the English,to the championing of thier culture,and when they think that the people have forgotten,it will be back to sticking the boot into all things English.

25 May 2013 at 06:59  
Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

Well done Mr Pickles

25 May 2013 at 07:30  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

Isn't it true to say that the Kingdom of Wessex is older than islam? I think it will still be here when the latter is just a paragraph in history.

25 May 2013 at 08:00  
Blogger David Hussell said...

How refreshing to see our excellent local traditions, including the ancient administrative areas, Kingdoms and counties celebrated publicly. I insist on putting my chosen county in addresses. Well done Eric.
In response to Peter D. ,"does anyone know if there is a Christian patron saint for the UK?". No, I don't think that there is one. But it would be an interesting idea. We need an early saint that travelled around a bit, to the various corners, perhaps one from the Celtic Church, before The Synod of Whitby. I don't see why we can't build on existing tradition.

25 May 2013 at 08:52  
Blogger Gnostic said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 May 2013 at 09:00  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Ian G, such is the standard of the house's contemporary paneled exterior door design that it would look silly painted any other way...

25 May 2013 at 09:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The dominant culture is a liberal one now, of course. Freedom, tolerance, diversity, and respect, with things like freedom of speech being core.

25 May 2013 at 09:18  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

Col Bob Stewart should be arrested for Islamophobia, just like the 85 year old pensioner who said the same thing http://freespeechineurope.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/elderly-british-woman-arrested-for-saying-go-back-to-your-own-country/

25 May 2013 at 09:38  
Blogger Roy said...

DanJ0 said...

The dominant culture is a liberal one now, of course. Freedom, tolerance, diversity, and respect, with things like freedom of speech being core.

Is it? See the message from seanrobsville immediately after yours about the arrest of the 85 year old woman. Of course she was guilty of bad manners, but it is easy to understand how she felt in view of the recent events. Furthermore the police did not arrest those youths a year or two ago who held up placards calling for the enemies of Islam to be beheaded.

To the "liberal" mind (I use the lower-case letter because I am not just referring to Lib-Dem voters) an 85 year old woman telling members of a minority to go back to their own country is much more threatening than a gang of physically fit non-white youths calling for the beheading of ordinary British people!

The Left believe that everyone should have the freedom of speech to agree with them. Those who disagree with them do not deserve "freedom," "tolerance" or "respect" because they are obviously guilty of "hate speech."

By far the biggest threat to freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience today comes from the Left, including the "detoxified" Tories.

25 May 2013 at 10:02  
Blogger LEN said...

'National Identity' is something our masters in the EU have been trying to destroy for some considerable time!.

National Identity and Sovereignty stand in the way of the bigger plans of those behind the EU.Unrestricted immigration has done a lot to destroy National Identity and this can only have been part of plan for a 'Unified Europe'.Eventually all power will be transferred to an unelected elite in Brussels.

'National Identity' has no part in the plans of those behind the EU.



25 May 2013 at 11:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy, we need to exercise our right to free speech regularly and defend it when we have to, including when it is criticism about Islam, Christianity, homosexuality, the government, or whatever. That said, I don't know the details of the story to which you are referring but the link says she was arrested for a public order offence. Free speech doesn't mean that we can shout abuse at people going about their business in the street, whether it's directed at Muslims, Jews, black people in general, gay people, Christians etc.

25 May 2013 at 11:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Here's some more context for that story:

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway_messenger/news/Friday-prayers-patrol-1128/

http://www.ukmalayalee.com/uk-news/news.php?id=Mjg4Ng==

Given the stated intention of the Woolwich murderers, these people seem to be playing straight into their hands.

25 May 2013 at 12:07  
Blogger Frank Withers said...

Your Grace, I crave your indulgence in a somewhat off topic comment which might be of possible interest to some readers. Wessex did achieve supremacy of South and Middle England initially through Offa of Mercia 764 and this was cemented through Alfred the Great to Egbert who obtained the submission of Northumbria in 959. The original Saxon invaders were predominately pagan and mainstream Christianity was reintroduced by St Augustine in Kent in 597. As Archbishop he initially formed three Dioceses of Canterbury, Rochester and London but importantly established a parish peculiar now called Cliffe at Hoo on the Hoo peninsular and the Church gave this Sede Vacante Jurisdiction. The point I am leading up to is that Cliffe and the Hoo peninsular is probably this most important forgotten Anglo Saxon site in England for it was here that Church met State and the forming of the Constitution and laws of the kingdom were forged. The great councils of state called the Councils of Clovesho took place on the Hoo peninsular at Cleofs Hoas now Cliffe, Cilling now the Old Cliffe Rectory, Chalkhythe now East Chalk, Acleah now Oakley Farm, Baccancelde now next to Higham, Hou now Hoo and Heathfield now Stoke. This forging of the English nation and laws has been largely lost from our historical past.

25 May 2013 at 12:09  
Blogger Roy said...

DanJ0 said...

Free speech doesn't mean that we can shout abuse at people going about their business in the street, whether it's directed at Muslims, Jews, black people in general, gay people, Christians etc.

I agree completely but you missed two points that I made. One concerned the woman's age of 85. It would have been more sensible for the police to have had a quiet word with her instead of arresting her. Furthermore one of the stories you linked to said the police did not allow her husband to go with them to the police station.

The second point is that during a demonstration against soldiers returning from Afghanistan a few years ago the police did not lift a finger against a group of young male moslems calling for the "enemies" of Islam to be beheaded. Which would you have found more threatening? The 85 year old woman, or the youths calling for beheadings?

That sort of bias tells you everything you need to know about the poisonous and corrupting effect of political correctness on the police and on this country's institutions.

25 May 2013 at 12:27  
Blogger Nick said...

seanrobsville said...
Col Bob Stewart should be arrested for Islamophobia


Unlike our government, or the Labour party, Bob Stewart actually cares about this nation and its the people (all races and ethnic origin) more than some defective and ill-conceived ideology. Is the way to not be Islamophobic to permit them to walk over us, to allow them to butcher us in the streets with impunity?

You can not protect minorities by surpressing the majority. Democracy is MAJORITY rule, not MINORITY rule.

25 May 2013 at 12:36  
Blogger Peter D said...

David Hussell
"We need an early saint that travelled around a bit, to the various corners, perhaps one from the Celtic Church"

Saint Ninian? Though from Ireland I don't think he travelled too far South.

25 May 2013 at 12:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy: "That sort of bias tells you everything you need to know about the poisonous and corrupting effect of political correctness on the police and on this country's institutions."

No. An appalling murder has taken place and tensions are very high. That mosque appears to have already been targetted and it's the police's job to protect allour citizens and to keep the peace. Her actions appear to have caused a reaction which may have got out of hand. That's the context. Free speech is always limited by the 'shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre' situation. Had she written it on her facebook page as an opinion then it would have been fine. Or if it wasn't then you might have something to complain about.

25 May 2013 at 12:44  
Blogger Roy said...

Mark Steyn, a Canadian commentator, has an article on the murder and is vitriolic in his criticisms of the British government and the BBC.

http://www.steynonline.com

Steyn also discusses the riots by Moslem youths in Sweden which have been going on for a few days now but have received little coverage in the British media. The Swedish authorities do not want attention to be drawn to the ethnicity or the religion of the rioters, and have simply described them as hooligans.

25 May 2013 at 12:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy: "The second point is that during a demonstration against soldiers returning from Afghanistan a few years ago the police did not lift a finger against a group of young male moslems calling for the "enemies" of Islam to be beheaded."

I'm not sure their storming the demo and arresting people would have been sensible. There may have been a huge kickback elsewhere. Better to send the FI team in and photograph the lot of them and arrest individually later. And they should have been if that's what they were advocating. From memory, some of them were but perhaps I'm mistaken.

25 May 2013 at 12:53  
Blogger Nick said...

Roy

"That sort of bias tells you everything you need to know about the poisonous and corrupting effect of political correctness on the police and on this country's institutions"

Couldn't agree more. Our institutions are becoming paralysed by political correctness. Pepole are so busy minding their P's and Q's that they cannot do their job properly. People will be hired and fired according to their political and religious views, not just their abilities.

My wike likens it to the days of the Soviet Union (she is Russian) when a worker's main concern was not to do or say anything out of line with the dictats of the political commissar. The result was inefficiency and corruption, and of course, the ultimate demise of the system.

The police are not the only ones affected. Education, local government, health, etc.. are all going the same way.

25 May 2013 at 12:56  
Blogger Roy said...

DanJO said:

Her actions appear to have caused a reaction which may have got out of hand. That's the context.

Why should anyone react to the taunts of an 85 year old woman? If there was any danger of the situation getting out of hand the police could have arrested the people responding to her too. The people going to the mosque could simply have ignored the woman as the British people in the crowd (I don't count people whose only claim to be British is to have a UK passport) did when demonstrators were calling for beheadings.

Once again you completely ignored my point about the police ignoring protesters calling for beheadings and the bias of the police, government and media.

Of course nobody should attack Muslims or mosques and anyone who does should be punished, but one of the incidents reported in the press yesterday was that some bacon had been left just outside the door of a mosque in Cardiff.

25 May 2013 at 13:05  
Blogger Roy said...

@ DanJO

My latest posting was sent before I read your response to my point about the earlier call for beheadings.

25 May 2013 at 13:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The 20th century saw an interesting development. The world wide desire of indigenous people to throw off the influences of alien involvement. Of course, we are talking about the end of empires. In every case, where the people didn't want them around, they were (...eventually...) sent packing.

So it will come as no surprise that the 21st will have a new phenomenon. Indigenous peoples throwing off the alien import of their immigrants, whether invited, economic refugees, the small number of genuine refugees or illegals.

The communists see this as an unpalatable human nature, and they did their very best to stop it. Fortunately, the number of communists, and that includes cultural Marxists like David B are very small. Always were and always will be. All that is needed are leaders of the calibre of Col Stewart to come to the fore. The number of freedom loving leaders like that man are also very small. But the Inspector says this, at crunch time, such as a blood soaked negro declaring war on us, who will the people listen to ?


25 May 2013 at 13:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy: "Why should anyone react to the taunts of an 85 year old woman?"

Why should they have to take it when the police were already there following their mosque being subject to attacks and criminal damage earlier? They're British citizens and as such they have the same rights as everyone else.

25 May 2013 at 13:16  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

Col Bob Stewart should be promoted to PM immediately. Who knows, he might eventually be canonised Patron Saint of the UK for the restoration of freedom and democracy.

25 May 2013 at 13:22  
Blogger non mouse said...

Thank you Your Grace, and 'Well done Mr. Pickles!!

Ah ... but where are Oswin and Mr J when we need them!?! They would help explain how the Anglo-Saxons came here after the Romans withdrew, in the mid-fifth century AD. However, some Anglo-Saxons were here even, with the Roman army, and the first part what followed is complex and unclear. The Northumbrian Bede (AD 673-735) is a good start, though, for anyone who wants to research the scholarship.

For the later story, the history of Wessex is essential to understanding our development as an independent and United Kingdom. The West Saxon King Ine (r. AD 688-726) produced one of our earliest law codes in English, the oldest copy of which is in the mid-tenth century Parker Chronicle along with the Laws of Alfred. (Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 173 ff 47...). These written, vernacular laws followed a precedent set by Aethelberht of Kent (AD 560-616).

However, Alfred of Wessex (r. AD 871-899) is the only king we call "The Great," and for good reason. In 766--in Anglian Northumbria and before Alfred's time--Ivar the Boneless had floated up the Ouse and sacked York. With the help of the Irish, Viking invasions continued ubiquitously thereafter, even once Harald Halfdane had established Viking York in 876. Alfred defeated them, however, at Edington Down in 878. We have copies of his 879 treaty with Guthrum (CCCC MS 383), which delineated the Danelaw and required the adoption of Christianity. Other Danes continued to attack, but the latter was a move that would have encouraged stabilisation of society and resolution of cultural differences within England. From various later texts, like "The Dream of the Rood," we gather the natural corollary that the Law of the One Almighty God was seen to overarch the wills of individual, earthly leaders. If all were loyal to God's Law ...(so, it DOESN'T work for the euSSR).

25 May 2013 at 13:42  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 May 2013 at 13:43  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 May 2013 at 13:44  
Blogger non mouse said...

Alfred also set us other examples. Among his military achievements, he established a network of defensive "burhs" throughout the land: maybe we should consider something like that again!

He also responded to the destruction of Anglo-Saxon culture: by restoring education, in English, to all free Englishmen. Some learning had survived inland, and the King found scholars, some like Asser with Welsh backgrounds, and the Irish influence was well-established. They helped to develop his programme, which involved translation of classical and Biblical texts into English; the Psalms are one example. After this work, English - the language of the people, not just the aristocracy - became the language of government and law.

Of course, earlier Anglo-Saxons had developed the scholarly precedent. Aldhelm (639-709) was the first Bishop of Sherborne and an Abbott of Malmesbury, and he had studied (AD 671) at the Canterbury school of ABC Theodore (668-90). This was the time when literacy in Old English began to take off.

As for the "Mighty Mahmud" -- well he was running riot AD 570-632. He's way outside my line of interest, but if he wanted to get out of the desert, maybe he had heard of the Vikings himself! They were everywhere.

Oh. And I'll keep on wearing my St. George's Cross whenever I want to.

25 May 2013 at 13:47  
Blogger Peter D said...

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard

"IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.. Take It Or Leave It.

I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. '

This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'

We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .... Learn the language!'

Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'

We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'

If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."

If only our politicians had the balls of this woman!

25 May 2013 at 13:51  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0 (12:53)

Also from memory.

Some of them were, but they refused to stand for the Judge (female) in the courtroom because they did not recognise any other judge than Allah.

The Judge accommodated them by coming in before them, they were found guilty of disturbing the peace, and were then charged for the new offence of contempt of court.

Regards.

25 May 2013 at 14:23  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

"Freedom, tolerance, diversity, and respect, with things like freedom of speech being core"

Then you go on in future blogs to qualify this to mean freedom to say anything provided nobody is upset by it.

Which is no freedom at all

Phil

25 May 2013 at 14:27  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

We do fly the Welsh flag and does not offend the English.

However, the point is we would not care a ..... even if it did!

Phil

25 May 2013 at 14:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Whenever our valued immigrant races sensibilities are considered, no one ever makes the point they were not dragged to this country kicking and screaming, but CHOSE to live here. Presumably, they LIKED the idea of living amongst the English and English ways. And they are free to return if they find English ways offensive, though one suspects the numbers that do so are relatively small.

Ironically, the graveyards are filling up with the sons of these immigrants who chose to live in London, only to find themselves living alongside the very peoples they wanted to get away from, and whose inbred violent characteristics see to said sons never get past childhood.


25 May 2013 at 14:35  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

Peter D @13:51
If only our politicians had the balls of this woman!

The balls of our elected politicians are in the grip of the multiculturalist EU and their hearts and minds meekly follow.

25 May 2013 at 14:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Then you go on in future blogs to qualify this to mean freedom to say anything provided nobody is upset by it. Which is no freedom at all"

No. Why do some religionists find these things so hard to understand? The police have arrested her for a public order offence, probably under Section 5, given the context she did it in. She is free to say that people should go back to their own country, even if their own country is probably the UK in reality. However, shouting it across the road to a minority group outside a mosque which has already been targetted and has police protection because of high feelings after a high profile and brutal murder is not okay and that's not about free speech but about public order. Why is this so hard to understand?

25 May 2013 at 15:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer: "The Judge accommodated them by coming in before them, they were found guilty of disturbing the peace, and were then charged for the new offence of contempt of court."

I'd have thrown the book at them for the latter offence, imposing a community sentence. Anyone can say that they only recognise their god hypothesis as judge but in reality there are local judges with temporal power for them to worry about and I'm happy for them to be reminded of that.

25 May 2013 at 16:11  
Blogger John Wrake said...

We do not need a U.K. Patron Saint.
The English have St. George.
The Scots, the Welsh and the Irish have their Patron Saints too. We even have Patron Saints for the Cornish (dozens of them) and for many of our offshore islands. There is freshness in diversity, for our Saints, though different in name, all proclaim their faith in Christ Jesus and reflect the richness of the faith which is the heart of the nation.

Incidentally, there is one Political Party which looks for St George's Day to be a public holiday. Guess what it is called!

John Wrake

25 May 2013 at 16:14  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 May 2013 at 16:19  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Pickles is my MP but I have no intention of voting for him again. Whilst he has had sensible no nonsense attitude to issues in local government and I have told him that, he has consistently voted for SSM and has never given a personal reasoned response to anyone I know as to his stance.
After his latest vote for SSM I emailed him, likening him to the relationship of Thomas Cromwell and Henry V111. Cromwell provided the ammunition for Henry to have Anne Boleyn done in. To them, lies could be believed as truth because it was expedient to do so.
Pickles has believed the lies about SSM to keep his job. I pointed out however that Cromwell was executed just four years after Boleyn. Pickles 21st Century demise will come in 2015 I pray. There are a lot of traditonalists in Brentwood and he had no mandate to support it.

25 May 2013 at 16:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The English, the Scottish, the Irish and the Welsh. Some of the finest peoples on this earth. Perhaps amongst those 4, we do indeed have the finest. So when a barbarous act is committed against just ONE individual, the entire nation rocks. Yet, the lesser peoples who inhabit the British Isles are not at all surprised. They know that the killer is nothing special. In their homelands, the likes of what he did is nothing out of the ordinary.

Which brings to the fore exactly who allowed in these peoples. There is only one culprit, our parliamentary democracy ordered it so. The demographic time bomb which will cause us such harm in the future. It also ordered abortion on demand, and the scrapping of the most necessary instrument of justice you can get, the death penalty.

There is something wrong with our democracy, is there not. And here is a graphic illustration of it. The three political giants out there - Cameron, Clegg and Milliband. We have a democracy that delivers the likes of these people to run our lives. And even more disturbing, the set up is such that our future political masters are going to be clones of these people.

We can rescue our version of democracy, and here is a creative solution to do it. Each constituency membership to select their own prospective candidate. No more people from the list from on high. Any devious politician who tires it can suffer imprisonment for his pains. No more place men or women. This measure alone may re-invoke some faith in what we have. God knows something has to be done, or we will be finished one day with our version of democracy, and move onto something else, for better or worse...

25 May 2013 at 17:00  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector said ...
"Whenever our valued immigrant races sensibilities are considered, no one ever makes the point they were not dragged to this country kicking and screaming, but CHOSE to live here. Presumably, they LIKED the idea of living amongst the English and English ways. And they are free to return if they find English ways offensive, though one suspects the numbers that do so are relatively small."

Maybe our UK politicians lack the courage and honesty to say such things hemmed in as they are by 'Human Rights'. However, as posted earlier, the Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has the balls our leaders lack. Here's what she said (again):

"IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.. Take It Or Leave It.

I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.

This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .... Learn the language!

Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.

This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.

If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."


Can you imagine Clegg or Cameron, or their lackeys feeding at the trough of Parliament and Europe, saying anything remotely like this?

25 May 2013 at 17:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The UK is my country too and I'm not keen on all that Christian crap coming from a politician. If he or she were my MP then they wouldn't be getting my vote any more. As Alastair Campbell said when Blair was in power: "we don't do god", and he knew his stuff there about the electorate.

25 May 2013 at 17:28  
Blogger David Hussell said...

There is just one rapidly emerging political party that intends to get rid of suffocating political correctness, return to common sense British values, reinvigorate democracy and reestablish our national independence and system of justice. It's leaders, members and supporters are serious about doing this. They are doers not talkers. It is the only patriotic party, not nationalists in the selfish, blinkered, narrow sense, but just plain, well balanced, traditional patriots. They look outward to the whole world and especially to our Common Law heritage friends in the Commonwealth and elsewhere. They have a global trading based vision, trading being something that we are good at. There are no prizes for guessing which party this is.

25 May 2013 at 17:35  
Blogger David Richards said...

Peter D @17:05

Julia Gillard didn't actually make that statement - it's been misattributed.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/likeitorleaveit.asp

25 May 2013 at 17:52  
Blogger Nick said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 May 2013 at 18:06  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Isn't the 85 year old pensioner also a British subject and has the right to have a little rant at muslims, who have now reached bloody nuisance level in this country. Surely she is entitled to voice her opinion out loud in public without being carted off by the Stasi.

It would be much better if those muslims who are so unhappy here would all piss off back to their beloved muslim countries. It would be doing them and us a favour.

25 May 2013 at 18:08  
Blogger Nick said...

Peter D

I could never imagine Cameron or Clegg showing even a fraction that level of patriotism. If they had to make a speech about immigration then their edit would probably look something like...

"Most British believe in God and are swivel-eyed loonies. This is some Christian, right wing, political push, a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly inappropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you complain to your local Labour council who will remove all crosses and Christmas trees, rename Christmas “Winterval”, and make sure the indigenous Christian population are denied their freedom of conscience.

25 May 2013 at 18:08  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

"Why do some religionists find these things so hard to understand"

Because in your brave new world having a point of view and expressing it is not freedom of speech it is a public order offense.

I'm not saying I agree with her actions. But then I am not her. Free speech will entail upsetting people on occasion, but that is after all what free speech is and words are after all only words

Phil

25 May 2013 at 18:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Isn't the 85 year old pensioner also a British subject and has the right to have a little rant at muslims, who have now reached bloody nuisance level in this country. Surely she is entitled to voice her opinion out loud in public without being carted off by the Stasi."

Well, that's fair enough if it applies to everyone so that (say) people can shout "go back home, nigger" to black people whenever they feel like it, and wrap bacon around the door handles of mosques to politely intimidate Muslims, and perhaps shout "you should all have been burnt in the ovens" to Jews outside synagogues when on the way to the shops. Perhaps those Muslims were fine in having a rant at women dressed immodestly and shouting abuse at gay people in their so-called 'no-go area' not that long ago. Not my type of free speech, but hey.

25 May 2013 at 18:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Because in your brave new world having a point of view and expressing it is not freedom of speech it is a public order offense."

Brave new world? She was being abusive to individuals during a particular volatile situation. If she was arrested by the police who were already attending then she was probably told to move on first too and refused.

25 May 2013 at 18:24  
Blogger Peter D said...

David Richards
Thanks for that. Well, even if she didn't actually say it its something that should be said!

DanJ0 said ...
"The UK is my country too and I'm not keen on all that Christian crap coming from a politician. If he or she were my MP then they wouldn't be getting my vote any more. As Alastair Campbell said when Blair was in power: "we don't do god", and he knew his stuff there about the electorate."

Vote for whoever you choose - its your right. It would be good if our liberal-democratic system worked as it should and governments obtained an electoral mandate for significant legislative changes.

Theviews attributed to the Australian PM do rather undermine the homosexual 'marriage' argument. And there's a tough line being taken in Australia on that issue too. At least they appreciate the limits to a value-free, amoral approach to so called 'liberlism' and understand it can only function within a society that has a bedrock of collective views.

As for the rest, its just an atheist rant and not worth commenting on.

Nick
Very good.

Are you Cameron's speech writer, by any chance?

25 May 2013 at 18:25  
Blogger michael north said...


I thought Julia Gillard was an atheist.

25 May 2013 at 18:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I remember David Mitchell recently making this point about 'racial' slurs though:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/05/david-mitchell-racism-insults-wales

Regarding shouting "sheep shagger" to some Welsh bouncers, and someone Welsh calling someone an "English cow".

25 May 2013 at 18:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"I thought Julia Gillard was an atheist."

Michael, you're confusing the facts with the issues matey.

25 May 2013 at 18:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Hardly surprising DanJ0 is miffed about the Australian PM. Where is her commitment to Gay Marriage, and when is she going to enshrine anal sex between two men into law ? To raise it to the status of cherished Australian custom, practice and right. To display it on proud copper plate on the walls of parliament.

To anybody new surfing this site, the aforementioned is ruled by his own sexual preferment to the degree that his politics MUST fall in behind with it. If you’ve never come across a case of the tail wagging the dog before, you have now...


25 May 2013 at 18:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm not in the least bit miffed.

25 May 2013 at 18:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One notes from BBC on line news that muslims in the UK are scared. Presumably their fears extend only to their own safety and not for being members of an evil religion....

25 May 2013 at 19:16  
Blogger Nick said...

Sounds like the beeb putting its own political slant on the story. I expect the white folk in Woolwich don't feel too easy walking the streets at night either. But of course they don't matter because they are not a minority.

25 May 2013 at 19:20  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Successive governments have chosen to ignore the insanity of multiculturalism. The backlash will come from the people most affected ie those that do not have the luxury of fat bank balances and homes in gated communities.

Muslims define themselves first and foremost by their religion. This is a religion that does not recognise a world of nations but a world of Allah; lost to the infidels and a work in progress to 'return' it to that 'original islamic state.

A crucial distinction made in Islamic theology is that between dar al-harb and dar al-islam. To put it simply, dar al-harb (territory of war or chaos) is the name for the regions where Islam does not dominate, where divine will is not observed, and therefore where continuing strife is the norm. By contrast, dar al-islam (territory of peace) of course it is is the name for those territories where Islam does dominate, where submission to Allah is observed, and where peace and tranquillity reign - naturally.

Why won't our thick as mince politicians wise up to the implications of this philosophy - does there have to be blood running in the gutters everywhere before they act?

25 May 2013 at 20:02  
Blogger Peter D said...

michael north said...

"I thought Julia Gillard was an atheist."

I don't know if she is or is not. Does it matterI mean in terms of holding a society together around a set of tried, trusted and accepted norms and mores which balance freedom of conscience of minorities with the stability and rights of the majority?

25 May 2013 at 20:05  
Blogger Roy said...

DanJo said:

Brave new world? She was being abusive to individuals during a particular volatile situation.

Come off it. She was an 85 year old! How terrifying is that? She was completely wrong to do what she did but nevertheless any Moslems with common sense should be able to understand why she felt like she did after the horrific murder of a British soldier and should not have reacted to her taunts, except perhaps by talking to her to explain that also condemned the murder.

Suppose it had been a four year old making the abusive comments. Would you say the police should arrest the child because of the "volatile situation"?

25 May 2013 at 20:34  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

The Burmese solution.

25 May 2013 at 20:39  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
It's not my preferred method of free speech either, but we seem to allow it from those who are of another culture to our own.

If you're black and beat someone to within an inch of their lives in the street for no apparent reason other than you are drunk after celebrating Prince Andrew and Kate's wedding, that does not attract a custodial sentence just a £100 fine and a bit of community cleaning, but if you are white, have had a few too many and decide to have a little rant about all the foreigners in the country whilst travelling home on public transport you get a custodial sentence of at least five months.

Wrapping bacon around the mosque door handles is not free speech, that's an action but the rest you mention should not be arrestable offences, attracting prison sentences or fines.

25 May 2013 at 20:39  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 May 2013 at 20:42  
Blogger non mouse said...

non mouse said...
Hope YG will bear with me! I need to clarify my earlier posting of 13:42.

My apologies for: However, some Anglo-Saxons were here even, with the Roman army, and the first part what followed is complex and unclear. That should read: "Some Anglo-Saxons came here with the Roman army.* The first part of the history that followed Roman occupation is complex and unclear..."
The difficulty arises mainly because proto-literate Anglo-Saxons used runes, but we have no contemporary records of their side of the story. The more sophisticated literary systems arrived in 597, when Gregory the Great (3 Sep. 590-604) sent Augustine to Canterbury. Pope Vitalian (657-672) consolidated our gains in 668 - by sending Theodore of Tarsus, the African Bishop Hadrian, and Benedict Biscop.** Schools, scriptoria, and literacy in Latin and Old English, consequently flourished here (especially as the Irish and Welsh already practiced these traditions).
Oh yes, we've been multi-cultural for a long time. The marxists didn't invent the idea, but they have subverted and degraded it for the ends of the euSSR. Some of us would claim that our time is the true Dark Age.

May I add also:
As education progressed in England, Aldhelm was one who exemplified the skill that was developing. He is famous for his Latin Riddles, and some of his work in Latin prose and poetry is available in modern translations. Since today is his Feast Day, I gladly provide the references below!!!! These books, and other scholarship, are available in good academic libraries.***
Aldhelm was said to have written in English too, but none of that work is known to survive.

--------------
*Oxford University's Vindolanda website shows how that worked. The Roman influence began with Julius Caesar's first foray in 55-54 BC; occupation ensued after Claudius invaded in 43 AD, and it ended in the mid-fifth century when they finally withdrew to defend Rome against Germanic tribes.

**Bede explains all this in Ecclesiastical History of the English People. A handy translation by Leo Sherley-Price was edited by D.H. Farmer for Penguin in 1990.
The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (J.N.D. Kelly) also presents the record clearly.

***Aldhelm: The Poetic Works. Trans. Michael Lapidge and James L. Rosier. Boydell & Brewer, 1984.
Aldhelm: The Prose Works. Trans. Michael Lapidge and Michael Herren. D. S. Brewer, 1979.
Aldhelm. The Riddles of Aldhelm. Trans. James Hall Pittman. Yale University Press, 1925.

25 May 2013 at 20:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy: "Come off it. She was an 85 year old! How terrifying is that?"

Being abusive isn't necessarily about causing terror. Lots of people take abuse without doing anything about it. However, the police were stationed outside the mosque because there there have been incidents across the country following that murder and that particular mosque have been attacked already. It was an offence of public order, not of freedom of speech.

"Suppose it had been a four year old making the abusive comments. Would you say the police should arrest the child because of the "volatile situation"?"

Children that age are below the age of responsibility. Adult 85 year olds are not.

25 May 2013 at 21:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Wrapping bacon around the mosque door handles is not free speech, that's an action but the rest you mention should not be arrestable offences, attracting prison sentences or fines."

Well, unfortunately for you they are and have been for a fair while now. Personally, I've very glad about that as I see no reason why (say) Jews should have to tolerate someone shouting that the should have all been burnt in the gas chambers at them when they are coming out of a synagogue minding their own business. That's abusive and probably both intimidating and distressing, and that's beyond what a right to free speech is intended to protect.

25 May 2013 at 21:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Here's some more context:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-22648399

25 May 2013 at 21:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

In case it has escaped anyone's notice, DanJ0 is a great believer in direct police arresting action when it comes to maintaining minority ‘rights’. All keen homosexuals are. Ironic really - fifty years ago these types would have pulled their caps over their faces and walked the other way on sighting a rozzer...

25 May 2013 at 21:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You seem to have had a bad week this week, Inspector. Trying to pick a fight with all and sundry, it seems. Is it your 'time of the month' (male version) at the moment? Or is 'life ennui' kicking in yet again?

25 May 2013 at 21:45  
Blogger Peter D said...

M ARIE
But don't you see all these poor *minority* groups need their *rights* protected. Christian groups have to tolerate all sorts of hateful comments - look at thehomosexual *gay* marches and Thatchell's behaviour during Pope Benedict's visit in 2010. Somehow, all this isn't a *public order* offence.

An elderly woman in her mid-80's, acting alone, making offensive comments; yeah, some *threat* to *public order.* Please! Silly and unnecessary behaviour but not a matter for heavy handed police tactics. And the Muslims must have felt really scared by her too.

We should all be free to leave Muslims in no doubt how outraged we all are by this evil and savage act of their co-religionists and demand they address the extremism in their midst that springs from the teachings of their leaders.

25 May 2013 at 21:46  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

We'll have to agree to disagree then Danj0. Everyone has and is entitled to have an opinion and to voice it. If some people want to shout out whilst standing outside the synagogue that all Jews should have been burnt in the gas chambers then it's up to those who get upset at this to publicly challenge that opinion. If it's a load of muslims chanting it then I guess they might be ignored anyway.

25 May 2013 at 21:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Context.

25 May 2013 at 21:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "We'll have to agree to disagree then Danj0."

*shrug*

"If some people want to shout out whilst standing outside the synagogue that all Jews should have been burnt in the gas chambers then it's up to those who get upset at this to publicly challenge that opinion."

No. It's probably a public order offence, depending on the context, and the police may well arrest them when they do it. That's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

25 May 2013 at 21:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Not much of a reply, more of a whine really. We'll assume case proved then. How about giving the Inspector some credit DanJ0. Even you can fool some of the people some of the time. But what made you think you could fool us all ?

25 May 2013 at 21:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, you live in a world of your own at times. And no wonder, really. Are you drunk again?

25 May 2013 at 21:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. You seem to have had a bad week this week, Inspector. Trying to pick a fight with all and sundry, it seems. Is it your 'time of the month' (male version) at the moment? Or is 'life ennui' kicking in yet again?

AND

Inspector, you live in a world of your own at times. And no wonder, really. Are you drunk again?,

You were doing so well tonight, but now you seem rattled. It wasn’t from this astute observation by the Inspector by any chance ?

“In case it has escaped anyone's notice, DanJ0 is a great believer in direct police arresting action when it comes to maintaining minority ‘rights’. All keen homosexuals are”

25 May 2013 at 22:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Rattled? Merely bemused.

25 May 2013 at 22:18  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Returning to the issue of an English patron saint, I favour St Alban. He was matryred for his Christian faith by the ruling pagan tyranny (Roman then, liberal left now) for his faith and unlike George definitely was a real person and English. And he died rather than worship the government idols.

25 May 2013 at 22:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Thomas Becket is your man. World renowned, and he stood up to Cameron, or was it Henry II

Strong hint there ++Welby....

25 May 2013 at 22:51  
Blogger Nick said...

Breaking news - in the wake of Wednesdays murder DC has finally come up with a response. He's setting up a committee. That should have the extremists quaking in their boots.

25 May 2013 at 22:58  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector
Astute of you to make the connection as you did.

The problem with a public order *offence* is that it depends on the anticipated or actual response of the persons or persons being *insulted*.

Now Muslims have a religious requirement to act fiercely against insults to their Prophet or their faith. So any words that might offend them are potential *public order* crimes. Its the same with homosexuals. I recall a Christian preacher being similarly arrested for pointing out publicly in the presence of a homosexual that God would judge him for his depravity.

And therein lies the problem. Christians are less inclined to react aggressively so insulting them is unlikely to lead to a breach of public order. We're pandering to the sensibilities of minorities who are given protection in a disproportionate manner to the majority.

Assault or abuse a Christian for their beliefs and its mainstream and likely to be overlooked; do the same to a Muslim or a homosexual and its a *hate crime* carrying a heavier sentence, or it becomes a *public order* offence.

Liberalism, eh?

25 May 2013 at 23:10  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Peter D: “Now Muslims have a religious requirement to act fiercely against insults to their Prophet or their faith. So any words that might offend them are potential *public order* crimes. Its the same with homosexuals. I recall a Christian preacher being similarly arrested for pointing out publicly in the presence of a homosexual that God would judge him for his depravity. “

The message should be to those that act fiercely against insults to their prophet or faith a jail sentence followed by a one way ticket to the muslim country of their choice, no messing about with rights and umpteen appeals. Threatening or carrying out violence in response to any criticism is unacceptable so should incur a custodial sentence. During which they should have to attend a Christian Church and Bible study.

26 May 2013 at 00:27  
Blogger Nick said...

A bit off topic, some of you may want to sign this petition to allow UKIP to take part in television election debates...


http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/43153

26 May 2013 at 00:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Well, at least you're open about your contempt for Article 9 of the ECHR. It's also noticeable that when you write stuff like that there's not a peep out of the usual suspects. Curious, isn't it?

26 May 2013 at 07:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's an odd complaint that an offence depends in some way on the reactions of those harrassed, alarmed, or distressed by anti-social behaviour. That's rather bound up in the notion of something being anti-social really. When those Muslim nutters were prosecuted for chanting stuff during the 2 minutes silence on Armistice Day a couple of years back it was because they intended to insult, offend, and distress the people around them by doing so. They were not merely exercising their right to free speech.

26 May 2013 at 07:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Of course, in the case of the Christian preacher most people recognise that his words were not intended to harass, alarm or distress people. He was just being a swivel-eyed loon. The Crime and Courts Act has amended the Public Order Act to try to make stuff like this a bit clearer and the CPS ought to be guiding the police on what is appropriate. As a gay man, I'm not intimidated by a Christian preacher making a fool of himself in public. By observation, most people are vicariously embarrassed for them, and youths are inclined to point and laugh. That seems a far better reaction than a police one to some religionist obsessed with the sex lives of other people really.

26 May 2013 at 07:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I expect the lack of a peep out of the usual suspects is that they don't really believe in a right to freedom of religion etc themselves, they just want special privilege for their own beliefs. Given the power to do so, they'd probably revert to a taleban-esque setup as it was in the past here, as I have always suggested.

26 May 2013 at 08:03  
Blogger LEN said...

As Christain preachers are no threat to anyone (except those who do not want their sinful lives exposed to the Light of the Gospel)perhaps full attention should be drawn towards those ( extreme 'religionists') who are butchering innocent people on the streets?.

26 May 2013 at 09:10  
Blogger Roy said...

Mark Steyn, the Canadian commentator, has made some interesting remarks on the murder in Woolwich and the muslim riots in Sweden.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349340/mission-statement

"For the last week, Stockholm has been lit up by what the great Australian wag Tim Blair calls the nightly car-b-q, started by “youths” after the police shooting of (you’ll never guess!) a Muslim man waving a machete. John Hinderaker notes that the authorities are taking a somewhat insouciant attitude to their blazing metropolis:"

"But while the Stockholm riots keep spreading and intensifying, Swedish police have adopted a tactic of non-interference. "Our ambition is really to do as little as possible,” Stockholm Chief of Police Mats Löfving explained to the Swedish newspaper Expressen on Tuesday."

"I assumed something had got a little lost in translation there. But no:

Vårt mål är att egentligen att göra så lite som möjligt…"

“Our goal is really to do as little as possible.” Chief Löfving’s media relations officer, Lars Byström, elaborates:

"We go to the crime scenes, but when we get there we stand and wait."

"That’s not strictly true. They are handing out parking tickets to the burnt-out cars. Seriously."

"Meanwhile, in Britain, the constabulary of a nation where men are hacked to death on the street in broad daylight are arresting Tweeters who Tweet insufficiently culturally sensitive Tweets about the unfortunate incident – and sending three coppers to warn an 86-year old lady that the cheese wheel she makes for the annual cheese-rolling competition is a threat to public safety."

"This is how it’ll go. As western governments lose their ability to impact anything that matters, they’ll become ever more coercive about all the little stuff. Heaven help the first granny who takes down a machete-wielding jihadist with an oversized cheese wheel."

26 May 2013 at 09:37  
Blogger LEN said...

Nature abhors a vacuum and will fill it as rapidly as possible.
This is as true in the Spiritual World as the Physical World.Where Christianity recedes Islam advances.. this is a fact which is easily observed.
The UK(and further afield) is rapidly becoming Secular and violence and disorder are increasing proportionately.This comes as no surprise to most Christians.
The Power of God is all that holds back the floodgates of the tide of evil that threatens to sweep all away before it and as God retires(He will not stay where He is not wanted) evil begins to gain the upper hand.
ALL those who desire(and are actively working) to smash the Christian Foundations of this once Great Country are culpable with the events breaking out in our society.

26 May 2013 at 09:38  
Blogger LEN said...

Roy,

'All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men(the police) to do nothing.'

Never was this so true as it is today.'Political Correctness' and intimidatory forces (from the 'religion of peace') have seen to that!.

26 May 2013 at 09:42  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

Cameron's committee will show that this act was a complete abberation by alienated young men, and had nothing to do with Islam, which is a religion of peace, nor with the Koran, which preaches universal brotherhood and compassion.

The problem can be completely solved by spending more money on promoting community cohesion and hiring more social workers. Britain also needs more state-subsidised mosques to give young men something to do and keep them out of trouble.

26 May 2013 at 09:50  
Blogger LEN said...

What our country needs now is a leader ...anyone know a good one?.

I never personally liked 'maggie' but we need a leader of her calibre.

26 May 2013 at 10:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "As Christain preachers are no threat to anyone (except those who do not want their sinful lives exposed to the Light of the Gospel) [...]"

Seriously, Len, almost no-one cares. I'm sure some of us would be happy enough to kiss in front of a church alter in during a service. The time has passed for religionists to try to force people to be ashamed about stuff that is harmless and natural anyway. When I worked in the centre of Leicester, we used to have a group try to preach at the botton of Granby Street. People used to just walk in front of them, either ignoring them or shaking their heads. It's a complete waste of time other than to tick a box back at their church.

26 May 2013 at 10:09  
Blogger William said...

"I'm sure some of us would be happy enough to kiss in front of a church alter in during a service."

Of course you would. It's all of a one with your contempt for Christianity. How is that different from putting bacon on mosque door handles?

26 May 2013 at 10:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

By invitation, you berk. So that the "Light of the Gospel" can be shone on us.

26 May 2013 at 10:28  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

@ LEN "What our country needs now is a leader ...anyone know a good one?."

We need another Churchill, who was politically incorrect enough to recognize that terrorism is intrinsic to Islam.

If we accept Churchill's virus analogy - 'as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog' - we will recognise that terrorism isn't a mutant form of Islam that is produced by radicalisation. On the contrary, thuggery hatred and murder are written into the basic DNA of the pathogen, and only need the right conditions to be expressed by any carrier of the disease (google 'Street Jihad' and 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome')

26 May 2013 at 10:31  
Blogger William said...

"By invitation, you berk"

I did not read your comment that way and it was not obvious to me given the context of the right to insult the religious.

26 May 2013 at 10:45  
Blogger John Wrake said...

DanJO at 10:09

It would perhaps help you, if you read the tale of the fox who lost his tail in Aesop's Fables.

Those who are handicapped by their adherence to unnatural sexual practices will always claim that their ideas are natural, since it would, if true, justify their actions.

Since those practices are essentially barren, whereas sexual relations between men and women always imply the possibility of fruitfulness, there can be no equivalence.

You need to understand that Christians don't hate homosexual people. They are sorry for the feelings of inadequacy or aggression which so often result from such practices and hope to explain that God's love for the sinner extends to this sin as much as any other, but that all of us need repentance for our sins before we can enjoy the fullness of life which God wants for us all.

John Wrake

26 May 2013 at 10:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

John: "Those who are handicapped by their adherence to unnatural sexual practices will always claim that their ideas are natural, since it would, if true, justify their actions."

Actually, even things which are natural are not necessarily justified. Moral agents usually operate on a different basis. I certainly know that even if you don't

"You need to understand that Christians don't hate homosexual people."

Oh I've been around the Internet since its inception and I've come across many Christians who really do hate homosexuals. Some of them are here too, as can been seem from how and what they write.

26 May 2013 at 11:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "I did not read your comment that way and it was not obvious to me given the context of the right to insult the religious."

Have you read some of the previous comments? Some of your co-religionists seem to advocate a right for people to be able to shout "you should have died in the gas chambers" to individual Jews minding their own business outside synagogues, especially if the shouters are elderly, even if the synagigue had been subject to recent attacks and during a period of heightened tension. I notice where you mistakenly homed in though.

26 May 2013 at 11:09  
Blogger William said...

Yes they do advocate it. It's called freedom of speech. Something to which you pay liberal lip service, but seem not to advocate when push comes to shove.

26 May 2013 at 11:24  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0 (10:09 & 10:28)

I must confess to finding most street preaching a deeply embarrassing spectacle. Spurgeon, however, was apparently converted by exactly that method; so one simply never knows.

Not sure if your 'Light of the Gospel' thing holds water in view of 'Corinthians'. Those within a congregation who will not follow the teaching should be expelled. (I imagine it would, likewise, be legitimate, say, to expel a Labour MP who wanted to extend private education and abolish the unions).

Re 'natural'. It was the argument made by Gide: if it exists, it's right. Humane, in his case. But it was also, I believe, the argument made by the Marquis de Sade: "Whatever is is right." Thus it was right for him to carve up a servant girl: because he was stronger that her by nature.

Murder is also 'natural' in that it exists as a natural act, but that is not an argument for condoning it: merely for acknowledging its existence. (I'm not wanting to suggest for a moment that being a murderer is the same as being gay: and I hope you wouldn't think that of me. I'm simply saying that the argument from Nature is not necessarily tenable).

26 May 2013 at 11:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Of course I advocate the right to freedom of speech but not the freedom to abuse individual people in the street, especially when there is a significant risk of public disorder which the police are trying to keep a lid on like there is at the moment. I expect almost everyone would agree that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre ought not to be protected by a right to free speech so it's clearly a qualified right to those people ... but perhaps you're happy for people to be able to do that without restraint too?

26 May 2013 at 11:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer: "I'm simply saying that the argument from Nature is not necessarily tenable"

Which is what I've said up there myself when I wrote this:

"Actually, even things which are natural are not necessarily justified. Moral agents usually operate on a different basis. I certainly know that even if you don't"

So what's your point? Or is that a roundabout way of agreeing with me?

26 May 2013 at 11:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Was the judge wrong in this case too?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-16985147

Has their right to free speech been violated?

26 May 2013 at 11:47  
Blogger Nick said...

"We need a new Churchill?"

Oh Yes

However, there are important differences between WW2 and the situation now. In WW2 the enemy was external, easily identifiable, and could be neutralised with conventional weapons. Now the main enemy is our denial as a nation that a problem exists.."It's just a one-off case" That's a huge mistake to make

Following Cameron's lame initial response to the woolwich murder the establishment has been strangely silent on the issue. The day after, what was the BBC discussing on their "Have Your Say" forum?.. gay boys joining the American boy scouts. They've carefully avoided having any public discussion on the murder or its wider implications.

Ignoring something won't make it go away. Sweeping the dirt under the carpet doesn't make yor house clean.

The real enemy is complacency. Its the tendency to view everything through the tunnel vision of political correctness. That's what will destroy us as a nation.

26 May 2013 at 11:50  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0

My point is that you did not seem to me to be following your own principles.

"...harmless and natural anyway." (10:09) You seemed to me to be using 'natural' there as a self-evident justification. I'd have been perfectly happy with the statement if you'd added your own qualifier of "things which are natural are not necessarily justified".

26 May 2013 at 12:20  
Blogger Roy said...

DanJ0 said...

Have you read some of the previous comments? Some of your co-religionists seem to advocate a right for people to be able to shout "you should have died in the gas chambers" to individual Jews minding their own business outside synagogues, especially if the shouters are elderly, even if the synagigue had been subject to recent attacks and during a period of heightened tension.

You are being utterly ridiculous. No Jews have been going around committing acts of terrorism in this country. You know perfectly well who is responsible for the recent "heightened tension" in this country. There has been nothing in the moslem world that remotely compares with the Holocaust, with the possible exception of the Armenian Genocide during and immediately after World War I when the victims were not moslems but Armenian christians.

Your earlier remarks comparing abuse from that 85 year old woman with demonstrations by moslems at Remembrance Day events are also ridiculous. Her actions were wrong but she did not try to disrupt a service in the mosque.

The Remembrance Day protests have much more in common with Peter Thatchell's interruption of a service in Canterbury Cathedral in 1998, or the demonstrations by supporters of Gay marriage at York Minster last year.

Did you support those Gay protests?

26 May 2013 at 12:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer: "My point is that you did not seem to me to be following your own principles."

Despite writing it explicitly? I've explained to you already why I throw the word "natural" around. Would you like me to quote that here again to remind you?

26 May 2013 at 12:28  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0

Bear in mind you weren't writing your 10:09 comments for me (I wasn't in the conversation at that stage).

You were presumably writing for the readership at large, some of whom might not have been aware of
your earlier qualification about the meaning of 'Nature'.

From the viewpoint of the general reader, my comment stands.

26 May 2013 at 12:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 May 2013 at 12:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer: "You were presumably writing for the readership at large, some of whom might not have been aware of
your earlier qualification about the meaning of 'Nature'."

I've made the point a number of times and I have developed various positions here over the years. Moreover, I wrote explicitly that one can't assume that natural implies good up there before you commented but you simply chose to ignore that. As such, I'm not responsible for your ignorance.

26 May 2013 at 12:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy: "You are being utterly ridiculous. No Jews have been going around committing acts of terrorism in this country. You know perfectly well who is responsible for the recent "heightened tension" in this country."

I do know. It was initially the two perps of the murder, and the people reacting to it by persecuting random Muslims innocent of the murder and attacking their religious building. That's who. It's the police's job to protect those innocent people and to apply the law regarding public order where necessary to preserve the peace. It is you who is being ridiculous trying to justify anti-social behaviour simply because it is against Muslims. Moreover, my examples of shouting "go home, nigger" to random black people, or the being absuive to Jews about the holocaust has successfully teased out advocates of that right despite your attempts now to make them outlier examples. It sounds like you disagree with them so feel free to point that out and comment on what they have said.

"Did you support those Gay protests?"

I don't know much about them to be honest. In principle, I think disrupting a service is out of order. If he wanted to make a protest then there are more appropriate times and places. Of course, some of your co-religionists might be advocating a right to do exactly that on the basis of free speech earlier on in the thread. What do you think? Are there limits which he breached and is that merely because it was not a wholly public place?

26 May 2013 at 12:51  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0

I didn't choose to ignore it; I missed it. Given all the posts there now are, I still haven't found it.

Anyway,this particular dialogue has become futile. Let's end it.

Your poat on the new thread is a good one. Continue your energies there.

26 May 2013 at 12:56  
Blogger Roy said...

@ DanJO

It is you who is being ridiculous trying to justify anti-social behaviour simply because it is against Muslims.

I did not try to justify anti-muslim behaviour. I stated that the elderly woman was wrong but, in earlier messages, said that in my view the police were a bit heavy handed in their treatment of her. Nowhere did I try to justify abuse directed against innocent people whether they are moslem, black or anything else.

What I complained about, as you know perfectly well, is the frequent double standards of the police and the political establishment in this country, and also of the liberal media who get indignant over the ravings of the English Defence League and similar groupings while defending the "human rights" of people who clearly express hatred of this country.

26 May 2013 at 12:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy, you tried to justify it as simply bad manners and because she's old and not terrifying, only latterly deciding it was "completely wrong "when called on it but still deciding that nothing should have been done other than a quiet word. A quiet word that may well have been said anyway and ignored if it was a Section 5 arrest since persistence is usually required. The thing about it being against Muslims is my interpretation based on your determination to argue about it whilst keeping schtum about the defence here of other examples I raised.

26 May 2013 at 13:07  
Blogger LEN said...

danjo,(26 May 2013 10:09) because your conscience has been 'seared' it doesn`t necessarily follow that others should`nt be allowed to hear the Gospel....We Christians apparently have a more liberal attitude and value free speech more than gay activists?.

26 May 2013 at 13:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "njo,(26 May 2013 10:09) because your conscience has been 'seared' it doesn`t necessarily follow that others should`nt be allowed to hear the Gospel...."

Len, I'll repeat what I say time and again: I full support Article 9 of the ECHR. Stand on street corners intoning that the end is nigh for all I care. Stick naff dayglo signs outside churches proclaiming "He is Risen!" or trying to be witty about the relevance of Jesus. I don't expect you to keep your head down and do things behind closed doors because it embarrasses the rest of us.

"We Christians apparently have a more liberal attitude and value free speech more than gay activists?."

How about in Canterbury Cathedral? What about on the thread about and the right of radical Muslim preachers to speak their mind? What about those advocating showing Muslims the door (or whatever the euphemism was) because their beliefs are apparently intolerable?

26 May 2013 at 13:28  
Blogger LEN said...

Danjo do you advocate radicalising muslim extremists, inciting them to murder?...because that is what the logical conclusion to your argument is?.

26 May 2013 at 13:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Huh??

26 May 2013 at 13:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah, DanJ0 is still battling for the rights of the beleaguered minority. The question the Inspector has is is it the muslims or is it the homosexuals, or both !

Damn hard to tell, you know...

26 May 2013 at 14:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The rights of all of us, Inspector, of all of us. Afterall, I'm much more mainstream than you are as a general rule.

26 May 2013 at 14:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Indeed DanJ0. We are bracing ourselves for Terence Higgins exercising their new rights by coming into schools and putting buggery on the curriculum.

Or is it 'our' new rights ?

26 May 2013 at 14:28  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

If you look at the THT website

http://www.tht.org.uk/myhiv/HIV-and-you/Relationships

All hetros not really a gay in sight.

We must have missed something, or got them all wrong.

They are all really for family values.

No threat to children what so ever.

Right!

Phil

26 May 2013 at 15:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nicely slid, Inspector. We were talking about free speech balanced with the rights of people to go about their daily business without being abused or intimidated. However, you have inadvertantly highlighted another example of limiting free speech. Why shouldn't the THT have access to schools to put forward their views if other organisations can? Heck, the Roman Catholic Church even runs some schools with State approval to propagate their religious views.

26 May 2013 at 15:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Let’s see then DanJ0. How about the right of Gay Conversion therapy groups to exist. Now, if you’ve been following that infamous benders site, you’ll see they consider this a form of hate. Indeed, Labour MP Dianna Johnson is on the case, to close them down.

It’s a queer old world, what !

Full marks to you though, you unashamed hypocrite, for trying to bounce decent types to see your way of thinking...


26 May 2013 at 16:17  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0

One further thought. Comment, not question, and not about Nature!

When I address a specific blogger, I am nonetheless aware of an open forum. There will be other contributors reading it, and an unknown number of those simply content to read. This audience is in a state of flux: old hands, and new arrrivals.

So when your said I made a point in a roundabout way, it was a fair comment on your part if you were the only reader. But for the wider audience, who might well have missed our earlier dialogue, the examples I gave seemed worth giving.

26 May 2013 at 16:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, we can’t have the EDL going into schools recruiting, so why should we allow THT in recruiting.

The excuse you give about some young confused lad topping himself isn’t enough. Not when corruption of many others would be the result...

Besides, the young lad will be educating himself by his own efforts of the net these days. And after that if he still decides to drop himself off a tree, what of it ? Young girls starve themselves to death at that age. It happens, no one to blame...

26 May 2013 at 16:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, you seem to be assuming I approve of the THT going into schools or of certain types of sex education. we have a high rate of divorce in the UK but I wouldn't approve of teaching children how to get the best deal out of a future divorce. However, for kids whose parents are divorced I think it's fair to point out that divorce happens and that there are issues around that fact.

26 May 2013 at 17:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Come on DanJ0. If you don’t approve of THT in schools, what was 15:51 about !

Not a blasted mind reader, you know !

26 May 2013 at 17:34  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 at 11:47
Those anti gay leaflets from muslims in Derby were not free speech they were threats of death to homosexuals. The one stating that “God Abhors You” was not threatening but the others as far as I can see were. So the judge was right.

26 May 2013 at 17:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, I've been arguing throughout that the right to free speech is a qualified right. It's others who have advocated it not having limits. A little bizarre, huh?

26 May 2013 at 17:39  
Blogger Peter D said...

" ... the right to free speech is a qualified right"

Sure is. If you're a Christian heterosexual best shut up about homosexuals; and if you're 85 years old and want to give Muslims a piece of your mind, best keep quiet too.

The forces of this *liberal* State protects those who are opposed to its norms and uses force against those wanting to safeguard our traditional values. And all in the name of 'equality', 'human rights' and 'diversity'.

26 May 2013 at 22:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'd rather an imperfect liberal democratic State than the oppressive theocracy you give every indication of wanting. We've had something like that before and it wasn't so great.

27 May 2013 at 06:20  
Blogger The PrangWizard of England said...

There is a Party which campaigns for St George's flag to be flown on public buildings and for St George's day to be a public holiday.

The English Democrats. Support them, join them.

27 May 2013 at 08:58  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0
Well of course you (and all other protected minorities) want a State stripped of all orthodox Christian morality and influence - you want sexual *freedom* enforced by what's becoming an increasingly oppressive, secular *liberal* ideology being imposed on us all.

And you must really stop going back 500 years into Christian history to use this straw man argument about theocratic totalitarianism. That was a time when people accepted the 'Divine Right' of Kings to rule rested on following God's law as taught by the Church.

Times have changed. There's no reason why we shouldn't or can't have a Christian and democratic society, other than the decline of active Christianity. That could be addressed over time if the Churches actually started to teach authentic morality as part of the Gospel message.

Liberalism's basic assumptions about human nature are deeply flawed. There will come a time when when people realise that liberal-democracy doesn't actually work without a sound, commonly accepted moral framework.

27 May 2013 at 14:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Liberalism's basic assumptions about human nature are deeply flawed."

Are they anymore flawed that the oppressive ones the Roman Catholic Church tries to use and which it tried to enforce through violence and fear when it had power?

27 May 2013 at 16:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"There will come a time when when people realise that liberal-democracy doesn't actually work without a sound, commonly accepted moral framework."

We have a commonly accepted ethical framework which works pretty well in the scheme of things. Afterall, almost everyone thinks theft, murder, assault, rape, etc are wrong. For sure, some people's self-interest overrides their social interest but that's human nature for you.

27 May 2013 at 16:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Compare and contrast with Western Europe when the Roman Catholic Church was in bed with despotic monarchs operating according to some sort of religious worldview. Were the lives of everyday people all rosy and good? No. Were the upper echelons of society noble and good? No. Was justice any better than it is today? No. In fact, I'm damned sure I'd rather be alive in England today tham back then? What about you?

27 May 2013 at 16:13  
Blogger IanCad said...

OIG wrote:

"Terence Higgins exercising their new rights by coming into schools and putting buggery on the curriculum."

It's been on the curriculum for many years.
It's called "Rugby"

27 May 2013 at 17:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Gentlemen, come to order. Allow the Inspector to welcome on your behalf, IanCad to the “Mouse and Wheel” a fine rugby pub. We’ll now hand the microphone to him as he has a special message for us all...


27 May 2013 at 18:08  
Blogger IanCad said...

Now, I wasn't expecting an invite OIG.
It's far safer to snipe from the anonymity of the internet.
I'm far too LMF to brave the wrath of a group of hefty and well lubricated sportsmen.
Seems wiser to decline.

27 May 2013 at 18:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


IanCad. The “Mouse” isn’t that far from the campaigning gay bar in Gloucester. Entrance full of pro gay slogans like ‘Some people are gay, get over it’. We have our own slogan, “Rugby men don’t do gay, live with it”. Fortunately for the gay activists, they do !

Right, now to remove all thoughts of ‘gay entrance’ from one’s immediate thoughts...

27 May 2013 at 18:30  
Blogger Peter D said...

"Liberalism's basic assumptions about human nature are deeply flawed."

"Are they anymore flawed that the oppressive ones the Roman Catholic Church tries to use and which it tried to enforce through violence and fear when it had power?"

Two seperate isues there. I'd say the Christian understanding of a flawed, fallen human nature is more in keeping with experience than the rational assumptions made by liberalism, yes.

And 500 years is a long, long time ago. The way society was organised and structured was different, as was the role of the Church.

"There will come a time when when people realise that liberal-democracy doesn't actually work without a sound, commonly accepted moral framework."

"We have a commonly accepted ethical framework which works pretty well in the scheme of things. Afterall, almost everyone thinks theft, murder, assault, rape, etc are wrong. For sure, some people's self-interest overrides their social interest but that's human nature for you."

Commonly accepted ethical framework? I don't think so. Human nature is indeed a challenge!

You really think people go around calculating and balancing their self interest against the common social good - or that the State is capable of doing so? If it were so, marriages would be stable and more fruitful and anything that undermined them would be taboo (as once was the case). And what do you think is the reason for the near universal acceptance of the 10 Commandments?

"Compare and contrast with Western Europe when the Roman Catholic Church was in bed with despotic monarchs operating according to some sort of religious worldview."

(Yawn) Not all of them were despotic, now were they? And the code they were supposed to follow was Christian and paternalistic - unlike the pagan world.

"Were the lives of everyday people all rosy and good? No. Were the upper echelons of society noble and good? No. Was justice any better than it is today? No."

Ah, but these were the ideals to which one aspired. Not sure its any better or worse now than it was then, actually. What are the ideals of our leaders and rulers today?

"In fact, I'm damned sure I'd rather be alive in England today tham back then? What about you?"

Well yes, there's been a lot of material progress in the past 500 years, that's for sure, and we're all healthier and wealthier. Happier? More doubtful. If research is a anything to go by, people today are a petty miserable, messed-up bunch. Interestingly, faith makes a difference.

27 May 2013 at 18:59  
Blogger Peter D said...

Ian Cad
" ... hefty and well lubricated sportsmen"

A Fraudian slip?

27 May 2013 at 19:40  
Blogger IanCad said...

Peter,

Now you've mentioned it I can now see that, given the subject matter, I should have rephrased it.

27 May 2013 at 20:17  
Blogger Anne Palmer said...

As Mr Pickles was one of those people that divided ENGLAND into EU REGIONS is this HIS WAY of introducing a REGIONAL Flag? To get us out of using the St George's Flag of ENGLAND-for you see there is not supposed to be a Nation nor Country of ENGLAND any more, just EU REGIONS. Scotland is already classed as an EU REGION as is WALES and each have one flag already. However, ENGLAND is supposed to be "no more".

When Labour was in alleged power however, Labour gave the EU flag exactly the same status as our United Kingdom flag. So, has the protocol on flying our flag been changed so that both the United Kingdom flang and the EU flag will be of the same height?

Hold high the Flag of England,
Let it flutter in the breeze,
In honour of our fighting forces,
In those far off foreign fields.
Hoist with pride the Flag of England,
On this St George’s Day,
Wipe not away those gentle tears
That fall on tender cheeks today.

Remember too the Rose of England,
Our National Emblem worn with pride,
A tender Rose of magnificent beauty,
In remembrance of those that died
So far away in distant Afghanistan,
Their loved ones way back home,
Will hold high the Flag of England,
And wear with pride the English Rose.

27 May 2013 at 20:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "A Fraudian slip?"

Now that's a Freudian slip.

27 May 2013 at 22:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "And what do you think is the reason for the near universal acceptance of the 10 Commandments?"

The first 5? I don't think so. And the last 5 are fairly obvious for a society of people. One can see a social contract in there.

27 May 2013 at 22:18  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0

What's an 'a' or an 'e' between friends?

And the last 7 of the 10 Commandments depend on the first 3, wouldn't you say?

27 May 2013 at 22:43  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0/Peter D

I find acceptance of the last five commandments more honoured in the breach than the observance. People agree with them, by and large, but won't/can't follow them. Why? It's like the puzzlement of the Swedes at the current riots. Their theory of human nature doesn't allow for such behaviour.

The issue of evolving morality: the implications of , say, 'The Descent off Man'.

If Tribes A and B combine to exterminate Tribe C, then co-operation is good: it has enabled survival.

If Tribe A then sets a trap and exterminates Tribe B at the victory celebration, then deceit and treachery are good: they have enabled survival.

The ends justify the means? The Ten Commandments insist that they don't.

28 May 2013 at 10:08  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older