Nasty intolerent liberals come bubbling to the surface

I've now found out what Tory election candidate Philip Lardner said. This is it, probably in part, but I took it from the BBC's website.

"As your MP I will support the rights of parents and teachers to refuse to have their children taught that homosexuality is 'normal' behaviour or an equal lifestyle choice to traditional marriage. I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of (common sense) equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is 'normal' or encourage children to indulge in it. Toleration and understanding is one thing, but the state promotion of homosexuality is quite another."

David Cameron has apparently gone ape about this. Why, may I ask? There are very many people who do not think homosexual activity is normal or correct. Are those who think so to be expunged from political life. I say to David Cameron, get a life yourself. A proper political life that allows diversity of opinion. Otherwise you are fast becoming a just another no-it-all liberal who is exactly the opposite of liberal.

Chris Bryant says "These comments are completely unacceptable and betray the nasty, judgmental truth behind the Tory camp". Really? This from a man who posed in his underpants on a gay porn site looking "for fun". I'm afraid I can't take Bryant seriously.

This action over Mr. Gardner is political intolerance. It is political censorship. It is very un-British. It is a kind of selective political brainwashing. David Cameron should look in the mirror tonight and ask himself if he is becoming just a tad too precious. Oh, and he still hasn't explained that wisteria removal to my satisfaction!

Just a Girl in shorts censored by Google - Au Revoir

I am horrified to see that a blog I have been following has been censored by Google. This should horrify all bloggers. Becky C from Arizona had a very successful blog. She still does! However, some have complained to Google and they have stuck up a an “Objectionable Content” splash page. I have to tell you, there's nothing objectionable about her blog.

What get's me is that this is done without warning. She is tarred and feathered without a hearing. I urge you to go to her blog. Support her. This is just so NOT RIGHT!!!

Just a Girl in short shorts talking about whatever: Au Revoir

Silly Scots MEPs give BNP a weapon of war!

I never really get this crazy pious self-righteous approach to modern politics. All four major parties in Scotland have taken the easy route and refused to debate with the BNP. Lothians-based Labour MEP David Martin has said, "Politics is about disagreement and competing visions and I'm happy to share a platform with people whom I don't agree 100 per cent with. But the BNP is different because they would deny other people such a platform. They are an anti-democratic party and a pure racist party."

What a priggish plonker you are, David, to be sure! You contradict youself in your own statement. All you do is snipe from the sidelines. You deny the BNP the very platform you say they will deny others. Is that the sum total of your paltry argument?

It is because these mealy-mouthed feeble-minded politicians do not take on the crazed notions of the BNP that they can make such headway. David Martin may well be re-elected and he will be sitting next to BNP MEPs in the chambers of Europe. WHY?? Because people like him have allowed things to happen that create a vacuum so the BNP can fill it. Shame on him!

Those of us who do not hold with the BNP's policies and mission in life should be bold enough to take them on in debate. David Martin is just a wimp!

Synodical censorship?

The General Synod of the Church of England has voted to ban clergy and immediate employees from being members of the British National Party. It was overwhelmingly passed by 322 votes to 13, with 20 abstentions. One member, in my opinion, valiantly stood up to this high-minded righteousness but to no avail. The Church ploughed on into the realms of political debate, thereby giving the BNP ample ammunition to use on the door steps. There's none so...

The Church should have stood by its existing policy of saying that the BNP did not represent a valid expression of the gospel. That it was inappropriate for Christians to agree with or promote such policies. That would have been fine. Instead, they up the ante by going head to head on an issue, free speech and democratic legitimacy, for which they will come off the worse.

The BNP are very good at manipulating the situation, and wow, dear clerics, they already have. I see from their website that they have 56 diggs on the latest posting. Sometimes I wonder at the suitability of the General Synod to grasp reality. I doubt if they will think about yesterday when the BNP do well in the Euro Elections. I fear for this country, because instead of debating and trying to win with a superior argument, we resort to bans and an affectation of lofty disdain.

The Archbishop of York said, referring to the fact that he was a member of the Baganda tribe, "As a Christian, I joined another tribe, it is the tribe of Jesus Christ, and in that tribe all are welcome." Well, I can say that at my church, we have people from quite a few tribes, some not a stone's throw from his. We all get along very well and I would like to think we could without worrying about the BNP. If we need to we can speak our minds. However, censorship and bans will only make our efforts that much harder. I doubt if many of those voting for this ban have come into contact with BNP supporters and members.

The way to deal with such opponents is rather like Lord Boothby did on meeting Hitler. The Fuehrer raised his arm and declared, "Heil Hitler!". Whereupon Boothby responded in similar fashion with "Heil Boothby!".

Police versus BNP

It seems there is now a concerted attack on BNP activists by certain police forces. If there is illegal activity it should be stamped on and dealt with accordingly. I just think that the police are being used to make the BNP go away. If this is so, they are extremely mistaken. All it does is embolden them and make it all the more likely that additional BNP councillors and possibly MEPs wiull be elected.

If police chiefs think dawn raids on political activists is what their job is all about, then we live in sorry times. This sort of activity could end up with them answering to elected police authorities consisting largely of BNP members. A nightmare too far for them?

Self-appointed moraliser as Daily Mail chief

Paul Dacre is the editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail. He's currently up in arms over the Max Mosley case. Mr. Dacre apparently thinks he should be the moraliser to the nation. "Now, some revile a moralising media. Others, such as myself, believe it is the duty of the media to take an ethical stand". Wow - high and mighty Dacre. The Moralising Laureate, no doubt! The trouble with his argument is that he wants impunity. Impunity to write half-truths and dissembled claptrap when it suits him.

Now I've got no time for Max Mosley's ideas of sexual happiness. Not really for me. But Mr. Mosley deserves to be protected from scurrillous attacks. Also, whilst we have the Human Rights legislation, he also needs to be protected from holier-than-thou lawbreakers like Mr. Dacre. Because Paul Dacre's Daily Mail has broken the law according to the judge in this case.

Mr. Dacre asserts that the judge, Mr. Justice Eady, is "unelected". Well so is Mr. Dacre, who effectively is positioning himself as moraliser-in-chief. Not an elected office, I believe! Mr. Dacre told an audience at the Society of Editors' annual conference in Bristol that most people would consider Mr. Mosley's activities to be perverted and depraved. So they may. A lot think homosexuality to be the same. A goodly number are offended by oral sex. As are those who condemn sexual activity outside marriage. Some think bare-breasted women in tabloid papers to be perverted and deparved. Almost all think paedophilia to be so, except the paedophiles themselves. However, none of this justifies reporters from the News of the World or any other paper making stuff up.

It suited the News of the World to spice up the story by adding the Nazi overtones. Recently John Prescott was, rightly in my opinion, berating the press for making up stuff about his meeting in London with model Jodie Marsh. "Does Pauline know?" said some of the tabloids. As Prescott said, "yes she did!" because it was all part of his two-part series on class in Britain. But the impression was made totally from the headlines that Prescott was a philanderer again. Found out once, tarred with the same brush every time forever after, whatever the facts.

A free press is one thing - to be cherished and desired. A lying, cheating and distorting press, only out to sell newspapers is quite another.

Jonathan Ross escapes prosecution?

I was not surprised by the furore over Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand. Both have a lavatorial sense of humour. In Brand's case, it is mixed with whatever the reverse of sexual innuendo is. That is not much of the innuendo more the sexual overtones.

I admit I watch Ross on his TV show. Not so much for him, but to see how he fares with the guests. Some he does better with. He has a good way with American actresses, who have probably been yearning to get out of the Hollywood and TV world of prissy pretention. With Ross they can get an hour's worth of therapy that they are being paid for rather than paying good money to some fake shrink in Los Angeles. Ross is entertaining and you know what you get. I know I can always switch off.

However, making rude suggestions and leaving them on an answering machine is somewhat different. I won't repeat all that has been said whilst I have been half-terming. But I did read an interesting point in the Guardian letters. Peter J Smith says that Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 would render a person liable to imprisonment of up to six months or a fine of up to level 5 on the standard scale, or to both for sending lewd messages to an answering machine or to someone in person. However, if someone sent offensive messages in the course of providing a programme service within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 then they would not. Mr Smith asks a very pertinent question - "If the radio programme had not been broadcast, would the terms of section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 apply to the offensive messages?"

As the offending stunt was pre-recorded did some legal officer at the BBC fear that Ross and Brand could be prosecuted if the programme was no aired. If so, it is hard to see why they are in the frame when it is some faceless BBC bureacrat who may be hiding a guilty secret. After all, if it was not aired, would the possibility of two stars being prosecuted cause more anguish for the BBC? Who knows!

When the root-and-branch inquiry is conducted perhaps Mr.Smith's question could be the first to be put?

EU laws hold Britain back

I saw this piece by Mike Nattrass MEP in one of my local papers, the Solihull Times. Under the heading "EU laws hold Britain back" it is in his regular column - 'Another crazy day in Brussels' with UKIP West Midlands MEP Mike Nattrass. This is what he wrote -

If part 1 had you asking why I show venom towards the EU, understand that this parliament in 35 years has created more UK laws than Westminster has made since 1485 and the battle of Bosworth Field.

It holds Britain back from trading with the world, including Europe, and restricts innovation. I love Europe, its people and its diversity. EU harmonisation damages the individuality of its people.

Brussels 2004 confirmed a rewrite of history was being made. The president said "WW1 was a Civil War." I shouted into my microphone "No one told my two grandfathers they were in it." I yelled "What were the Americans, the Indians, the Australians..." and I was switched off. In disbelief we heard that there were "No Germans in WW2".... they were "Nazis!" That night I realised conscripted Germans were insulted, many were not Nazis.

February in Strasbourg confirmed referendum failure, I left the voting chamber still dressed in my yellow "Too chicken for a referendum" shirt.

After an interview with ITV they said "We had better get this away before it is confiscated". "What!" I said. They replied "Yes, they do not allow people to talk like that if they can stop it."

That day Shirin Wheeler of the BBC had been told that she "could not video UKIP in the chamber" as "you cannot video dissent". She replied: "Either we video it all or nothing. Which do you want?"

Good for Shirin and thank goodness for the Solihull Times.

That's the whole trouble with the EU for me. Spin and subterfuge. Deceit and deception. They claim to be of the side of the citizen, but all along they want it their way or no way. Democracy? Of a kind!

No Playboy at playtime for the boys in Baghdad

Censorship? No, it's more about decency. That's what Paul Broun unveiled in his House bill last week (April 16). The upstanding Congressman from Georgia says his Military Honor and Decency Act would amend a provision of the 1997 Defense Authorization Act that banned sales of “sexually explicit material” on military bases. Paul's all worried about the morals of the boys fighting the insurgents and renegades in Iraq and elsewhere.

“Allowing sale of pornography on military bases has harmed military men and women by escalating the number of violent, sexual crimes, feeding a base addiction, eroding the family as the primary building block of society, and denigrating the moral standing of our troops both here and abroad,” Broun said. Now don't you hold back, Paul! You tell those guys that reading this stuff can make them go barmy and bawdy, and even belligerent. One part of the provision states that if a print publication is a periodical, it would be considered sexually explicit if “it regularly features or gives prominence to nudity or sexual or excretory activities or organs in a lascivious way.” Nudity lascivious, then? Too much control, Paul. Too much of you bothering about other people's private business.

The same thing's happening in Britain. Some New Labour control freaks want to add all sorts of stuff to the catch-all Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. Thankfully we have such people as the Earl of Onslow to look out for us and our freedoms. Commenting on the definition of "extreme pornographic images" during a debate on the bill, the Earl said -

"My Lords, are we not facing the terrible problem of definition? Where you have a definition that says that an extreme pornographic image is an image which is, "(a) pornographic, and (b) an extreme image", that is like saying a dog is a dog or a horse is a horse; it gets you absolutely nowhere.

There is a wonderful museum in Paris, the Musée d’Orsay, which is full of the most beautiful pictures. One of them was commissioned by the Turkish ambassador in around 1860. It is a close-up painting of a lady’s genitalia, and I believe it is called the Mother of the World—

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: “L’Origine du Monde”.

The Earl of Onslow: I thank the noble Lord. My bet is that the Turkish ambassador commissioned that painting for sexual arousal, and yet there it is, displayed in the Musée d’Orsay. Some Greek vases have pictures of Priapus on them. If Priapus was to do the things he is threatening to do, it is fairly likely, because of the size of what he has got, that they would result in serious injury to a person’s bits and pieces. We are here in the problem of definition.

I wonder what the Congressman thinks of such a painting. Would he include it in his bill? Paul Broun should ponder on definition, because it will be a problem for him as much as anyone else.

Dutch director Paul Verhoeven's "realistic" rape thesis of the Virgin Mary!

In the "probably happened" theories this one is added to a long line of debunking books about the life of Jesus. According to Paul Verhoeven a Roman soldier got a basic instinct and raped Mary. Joseph said nothing of much significance. The Catholic League in America is up in arms. I wouldn't bother. An omnipotent God can look after Himself.

Verhoeven can answer for himself. St. Paul will simply ask, "Where did you get such a preposterous idea from?". I'd far rather "let all grow until the harvest" than seeking to ban his book, or put him in jail or something.

Fox News has the story.