Can Dave be a true Brit?

In a personal appeal from the steps of No 10 for the "Remain" campaign before the historic EU Referendum vote, David Cameron told us, "Brits don't quit". The next time he appeared on the steps of No 10 he announced that he was doing just that, quitting!  How very un-British. Intentional or not his action looks like an act of vindictiveness to make Brexit voters suffer for ignoring his appeal regardless of the consequences for the UK.

A communications man through and through, this time the PM came unstuck. His luck ran out but the very time his communications skills are most needed for our country rather than party, he has thrown in the towel adding to the difficulties of the EU after his claimed allegiance to the European cause. Definitely not his finest hour.

Another sour grapes loser, political opportunist Nicola Sturgeon can't wait to take advantage of the situation to split the UK. This tedious self assured minnow deserves another resounding rebuff for putting party dogma before unity.

Following the PM's resignation sadly the UK’s EU Commissioner Jonathan Hill also quit. Now the Labour party is in disarray but the one person who should go, Jeremy Corbyn, seems determined to stay regardless of the consequences. As Hilary Benn said, "he is a good decent man but he is not a leader".

The Brussels bureaucrats led by the grossly overpaid Jean-Claude Juncker are in their element, exhibiting the very traits that have angered many across Europe. In contrast German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said the European Union has "no need to be particularly nasty in any way" in the negotiations with Britain about its exit from the bloc so people need to keep their heads and not act irresponsibly.

Dave says that he wishes people to remember him for gay marriage. How sad but given his utter failure on the European question perhaps it is not surprising.

One Tory MP who did not vote for gay marriage is Andrea Leadsom. A prominent advocate for Brexit with a formidable financial sector background. I expect we shall be hearing a lot more about this former Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

How low can this man sink?

Photo: REUTERS

David Cameron told gay people at a Downing Street reception that he planned to thank the Queen 'personally' for giving her assent to the same-sex marriage bill.

From an article in the Telegraph: "Although the Queen could hardly not have given her assent to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, David Cameron promised guests at a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender reception in Downing Street on Wednesday that he intended to thank her “personally” for signing it at his audience with her that evening." 

Devious Dave not only trapped the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith into giving her assent to this electioneering stunt but he then seeks to imply Her Majesty's approval as he diverts scarce resources to export gay marriage around the world. How much lower can his man sink?

Out of touch...

... and out of town?           Photo: AP/EDDIE MULHOLLAND/GETTY

One of the themes running through yesterday's debate on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill was that older people are out of touch with current opinion. Many MPs referred to correspondence they had received from their constituents which, allegedly, showed that younger voters were in favour of so-called equal marriage implying that senior citizens had no regard for equality. It is not unusual for younger generations to believe that they are blessed with wisdom that has evaded the elderly when in fact the elderly have a greater depth of experience bearing witness to changes over time, many of them step changes, each one presented as a small step but leading to the giant leap intended although not admitted at the time. Those familiar with this strategy who express opposition are frequently referred to as homophobes and bigots giving the accuser the satisfaction of feeling enlightened while wallowing in their own ignorance.

 Noted for his absence from the debate was the prime mover, the Prime Minister, along with the authors (above) of a letter to the Telegraph claiming that “attitudes to gay people have changed”. Of course they have changed but so have the attitudes towards people who do not bend the knee to the Zeitgeist, recognising self-interest masquerading as progress. The Prime Sinister Minister would have us believe that last night's vote is 'an important step forward' towards equality, 'making our country stronger' - see the video in this link - but not according to half his MPs who voted against the measure suggesting that Cameron is out of touch with his own party.

Deception is key to this Bill. It has nothing to do with equality, the implied primary motive of the Government when they launched their 'equal civil marriage' consultation in March 2012 because the Civil Partnership Act 2004 provides equality under the law; hence there is no reference to equality in the Bill other than a cross reference to the Equality Act 2010. Deception was used during the passage of the Civil Partnership Act with denials that it had anything to do with same-sex marriage. This question was put directly in the debate but the priest turned MP and member for Rhondda, himself in a civil partnership, excused himself by saying that things had moved on and he had changed his mind, a situation not dissimilar in the campaign for women bishops emphasising that assurances offered by revisionists are completely worthless.

Had the older generation not advanced the cause of genuine equality, MPs would not have been engaged in the current debate but we are where we are. What I find most irksome are the distortions employed to make a case. There were many worthwhile contributions to the debate but often the arguments advanced in support of the Bill had nothing whatsoever to do with equality or prejudice as claimed. For example the sad case of Alan Turing's death was used to justify same-sex marriage but the unjust persecution of homosexuals in the past cannot be used to justify the re-definition of marriage. It was also suggested by a number of members that marriage has evolved over the years citing as examples the treatment of women  involved in property transfers and wives being raped by their husbands but such examples have nothing to do with redefining marriage, they are examples of women's rights in a union between a man  and a woman.

These are not a unfamiliar tactics. In the other big debate on women bishops, what is the relevance this statement if it is not a deliberate attempt to smear the opposition by association?
"On 16 December 2012 a young woman was beaten and gang raped in the suburbs of Delhi. She died 13 days later from the brain and gastrointestinal injuries she suffered as a result of the assault." According to the Chair of WATCH, everything. She writes: "Many of us will have studied, at school or university, some of the great freedom movements of history such as the abolition of the slave trade or the dismantling of apartheid in South Africa, movements which have revolutionised, restored and redeemed the relationships between human beings." 

Similar comparisons were made in the debate. We are all appalled by such events but to use such examples to taint opponents serves no good purpose and shows the accusers to be out of touch with reality.

Clowning around with marriage

David Cameron: "I'm a massive supporter of marriage and
 I don't want gay people to be excluded from a great institution.”

Many grassroots Tories are bewildered by what they see as David Cameron's betrayal over the government's plans to push through a redefinition of marriage but Tory warring against Tory is not a new phenomenon. In the Thatcher years the war was against the 'wets' and the question asked was "Is he one of us? Now it is, "Is he one of them?" There are suggestions that gay MPs secretly risk being outed for publicly opposing same-sex weddings and further suggestions that Tory waverers are being press-ganged to back Cameron on the gay marriage vote or their careers will be damaged. Today there is a warning that teachers and the Church of England could be sued if they don't accept the change.

It is a mystery why the government is so intent on this change when nobody has been given the opportunity to vote on such a fundamental issue. There are enough examples of the absurdity of this agenda when a man refers to another man as his wife and a woman refers to another woman as her husband. At least that is a matter of choice but the whole process turns to farce when children are involved and a child's 'mother' or 'father' who, for biological reasons, evidently cannot be the wife or the husband in the relationship since the biological mother will be a surrogate and the father a donor, unless of course the father, or mother, in a same-sex relationship is the biological father, etc, etc. The proposed solution of substituting 'parent' for mother and for father in same-sex relationships is far from convincing if one imagines a child crying 'Parent' during the night or trying to get his or her head around the situation and asking 'parent' ('mummy' or 'daddy') for an explanation.

The explanations given for the redefinition of marriage are based on false notions of love and equality. Some groups of people who love each other are rightly barred from marriage  for the well-being of society but as with all change, one step leads to another. Marriage as it stands has clear benefits for society. Couples in civil partnerships already have equality with the same rights as married couples. At the grassroots people of all persuasions are content with the status quo and simply do not understand why anyone would want to clown around with what has been regarded for centuries as a sacred institution. Clowns frequently make fools of themselves often falling flat on their face. Let's hope this is no exception.

Postscript
Three ministers holding the three great offices of state, have written a letter to The Telegraph saying that “attitudes to gay people have changed”. This has absolutely nothing to do with attitudes to gay people. It is the simple belief that marriage is the life-long union of one man and one woman. To suggest otherwise is pure deception. They claim that 'marriage has evolved over time and believe that opening it up to same-sex couples will strengthen, not weaken, the institution'. In fact marriage as an institution is declining with married couples now making up less than half the population, a position the Government were expected to address but instead of honouring their manifesto commitment on tax supporting marriage, they propose to give tax breaks to gay married couples! It is ministers' attitudes to heterosexual people that have changed.

Two faced

Who would have thought it? The Prime Minister, David Cameron has been accused of a 'broken promise' as gay couples told they can marry in church". Tut tut; the Archbishops, guardians of our moral values are not at all pleased. But to be fair to them, they are experts in their field. The broken promises over the ordination of women, calls to fix voting procedures when they don't like the result, vilifying the opposition has all become part of New Anglicanism. Too bad they cannot rig Parliament so the bishops will have to live with the consequences of their actions.

My wife and I were reflecting earlier today on the changes we have experienced in a generation. Gone is the calm assurance that the church is just there, standing firm against the whiles of the devil, looking to the moral fibre of the nation and providing  comfort in time of need. Instead we have angst, betrayal and exclusion, often by people 'new to faith' who have no understanding of the word let alone of the theology of the minority they like to criticise as misogynistic bigots, a term now used by enthusiasts for same sex marriage. After every disaster covered by television church doors are opened, nightlight candles appear everywhere, hymns are sung and 'the minister' has some trite comments to make before everyone trots back home forgetting about church until the next rite of passage.

That rite of passage increasingly looks as if it will be same sex couples exercising their right to be 'married' in the Parish Church despite Mr Cameron's protestations. Once the European Court of Human Rights has been visited by activists that will be the end of the matter. One of those shouting loudest to complain from the sidelines is Mrs Thatcher's placement, Abp George Carey. Constantly screaming 'foul', it is he who bears much of the responsibility for the mess we are in. Whatever your views on the ordination of women, it is inescapable that church attendance is dropping at a quickening rate, the authority of the church has diminished and teaching, such as it is, has in many churches more to do with civil rights and relating to society today than with teaching the faith as it has been handed down over the centuries. Instead of guiding the church along the path to unity, the Archbishops and bishops have set the Anglican church apart from the Apostolic church to which we belong. 

Creeping changes in the church represented as small steps at the time have left us mired in controversy. Tolerance has been repaid with vindictiveness in the process of allowing deaconess to become deacon, deacon to be ordained priest and now, priest to bishop. This process has been mirrored in society. Tolerance of minorities in the interests of so-called equal rights has become a hammer to bludgeon anyone who dares to speak their mind. The bishops are reaping what they have sown in their objections to the abhorrent proposal to redefine marriage. They are correct in their objection but they have lost their moral authority. Even if the Government had a mandate, which it does not, it would be contrary to natural law which binds a man and a woman together in the act of procreation without which neither same sex nor complementary sex couples would exist. 

The problems we are experiencing in society first manifested themselves when we turned away from the teaching of the universal church. Consequently we have lost not only the moral authority but the sympathy of those who identify themselves as Anglican for census purposes but who, in the main, have lost any sense of its meaning. This could not be more stark than in The Episcopal Church of the United States (TEC) where the Presiding Bishop is disregarding Canon Law as she punishes bishops and priests for remaining true to the Gospel. The American Anglican Council (AAC) reported 'illegal acts' to the Church of England in February 2010 after the Holy Orders of 152 priests and deacons and 9 bishops had been renounced by TEC but to no avail. The ACC is now appealing to leaders of the Anglican Communion for help but the Church of England is impotent because she is heading in the same direction as TEC.

The House of Bishops meets next week. They MUST apply the brake and take stock of what is happening in the Anglican church and in the society they strive to emulate rather than set an example. They cannot face both ways being liberal on the one hand and conservative on the other. They must face the truth.

Self or selfless?

The current debate on gay marriage ignores an important aspect of marriage - children. Children may not be in the minds of all gay or lesbian couples but if they are, they ignore the fact that it is normal for a child to have a mother (female) and a father (male). 

In probably the most high profile case, Sir Elton John and his partner have admitted that their son "faced 'challenges' and potential 'double' stigma as he grew up and have consulted counsellors to find out the best way of dealing with any potential problems." Hardly surprising when the boy's 'mother' (and possibly his biological father) will be 84 when Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John is 21 and his father (also possibly his biological father) is in his 70th year and both are/were male. In the US there was another bizarre story of a pregnant father giving birth to a bouncing baby girl. These sort of cases are so far removed from normality that they highlight the absurdity of change for no apparent reason other than self-gratification. I want, therefore I must have, no matter what the consequences.

Fresh from his Review for the Archbishop of Wales who appears to be somewhat accident prone in his choices, the liberal-minded former bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries of Pentregarth has stepped into the debate with the suggestion: "Instead of at first opposing civil partnerships, and then only accepting them grudgingly with gritted teeth, they should have welcomed them warmly from the first and immediately proposed services of commitments and blessing in church. They should do this even now." Few people are any longer interested in what the Anglican Church has to say but it will be interesting to see what trendy recommendations Lord Harries comes up with for the Church in Wales to hasten its further decline.

Many religious and non-religious heterosexual people supported civil partnerships despite reservations that some participants sought to have their partnerships seen as a marriage. In the church this has become a familiar pattern of give a little, grab the lot. Spurious arguments about equality have seen women's ordination and liberal sexuality take more bites out of the apple until there is nothing left but a barely recognised core. The Anglican Communion is now in its death throws as the Anglican Covenant attempts to paper-over the cracks. For some odd reason, once a band wagon starts rolling people jump on for fear of being left behind and branded yesterday's people, many clergy included. 


PM David Cameron has been followed by the Leader of the Opposition Ed Miliband in support of so-called gay rights but in reality it has more to do with electoral advantage than ethics or conscience. By implication Cabinet Minister Francis Maude now associates family values with being nasty!  There is a moral here. Trendy desires have done the Anglican Church no favours in her drive to become more relevant to society. What the country needs is strong leadership based on traditional values instead of pandering to current whims which favour self over selflessness.

New Years Honours farce

While most people in this country and others are still licking wounds our bankers inflicted, one of the beneficiaries of our nation's downfall has been honoured with a knighthood. Personally I don't give a toss how much charitable work he or other undeserving recipients may have done. Most can well afford it far better than Mr and Mrs Average and pensioners who give regularly to charities and see philanthropy as its own reward. Even if Paul Ruddock were the most deserving name on the New Years Honours list in philanthropic terms, what sort of message does it send to people who have lost their savings and see their standard of living continuing to fall with many shivering because they cannot afford the cost of fuel? Thousands of people have lost their jobs, many their homes too, and a generation see no prospect of employment or a home of their own. That is their legacy from people who continue to reward themselves while the rest suffer. Why should we honour them too?

Happy New Year!   

Postscript

"David Cameron pledges end to city excess." - Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Awarded For Lower Class Service

Dave's latest big idea is to re-introduce the British Empire Medal scrapped by his predecessor John Major as divisive.

"The medal will be handed out in recognition of the dedication and hard work so many provide to their communities", says the Prime Minister. No matter that there is no Empire or that God is irrelevant to most of the population, 'Meritorious Service' by the lower orders (people without rank) will be recognised as such in gratitude for their unpaid work.  

Why perpetuate a 'them and us' mentality? Surely it is not too difficult to come up with a new award such as the Queen Elizabeth Medal for service without all the class baggage.

Entente Cordiale?

Little Jack Horner: The French view

"French President Nicolas Sarkozy lashes British Prime Minister David Cameron in EU summit." - Herald Sun.

A question of trust

The 1979 election was said to have been won for the Conservatives by a fake 'Labour isn't working' poster. Today the published unemployment figures were simply described by the Prime Minister as "disappointing". Young people who have never worked will no doubt have a different description.

Attacking the public sector has been a key part of the Prime Minister's strategy. He suggests that cutting public sector jobs will enable the private sector to expand by picking-up the slack created. Not so thus far on today's figures. The smoke-screen of attacking the public sector is no substitute for a plan for growth.  Regions have been unjustly condemned for the size of public sector employment in their areas after it was created as a matter of government policy. People filling jobs that were dispersed from London to save money and mop up spare capacity created by the loss of manufacturing jobs are now blamed for current problems and their successors are being made redundant with little or no hope of work. 

Today Mr Cameron let slip another government aim of cutting public expenditure. After the Government's earlier gaff of predetermining the outcome of 'discussions' on public sector pensions, David Cameron quickly corrected himself in PM Questions when responding to Ed Miliband telling him that the government was cutting (reforming) public sector pensions. Is it surprising that public sector unions are threatening more public sector strikes?

  

Summer breaks

Spare a thought for poor David Cameron. Twice he has had to interrupt his Summer holidays this August. Not wishing to make the same mistake as when he idled back from Tuscany to take charge in the aftermath of the riots that were engulfing our major cities, earlier this week he dashed back from Cornwall to claim credit for what might have been dubbed Cameron's war had it worked out better. No matter that US missiles and French carrier support were to the fore, he supplied intelligence so no time was to be lost in claiming victory even if the fighting in Libya goes on. 

Perhaps a little too quick off the mark this time but at least it pushed the Coulson affair into the background for a while. Better luck next time Dave.

Room at the top?

Apparently not - except at the Met. 

In one of the closing questions from the Commons Culture and Media Select Committee (July 19), Rupert Murdoch was asked if he would take responsibility as Chairman and Chief Executive of News Corporation and resign in the wake of the phone hacking scandal that has rocked his media empire. His response was an emphatic 'No' on the grounds that he was the best person to clear up the matter. This was a far more robust response from someone who at first appeared to be a sad, tired, old man who needed the support of his son to get him through the ordeal. 

One was left wondering how this faltering old man who, according to Wikipedia, "was listed three times in the Time 100 as among the most influential people in the world. He is ranked 13th most powerful person in the world in the 2010 Forbes' The World's Most Powerful People list.^[4] With a net worth of US$6.3 billion, he is ranked 117th wealthiest person in the world.^[5]" could possibly run a worldwide organisation employing over 50,000 people and be courted by a succession of political leaders.

By contrast his son James talked a lot but said little. Over deferential, he twice complemented his interrogators on the quality of their questions but generally his answers were routine; it was before his time, he hadn't been told, or he would be happy to co-operate by seeking to provide the information sought by the committee. I doubt that the Home Affairs Committee Chairman Keith Vaz would have allowed Murdoch Jr to talk at such length while saying so little. 

The long pauses employed by Murdoch senior and the groping manner of his son first gave me the impression that they were wired into their legal team but perhaps it was all part of the planned response. After sitting through all the evidence the only real excitement came when a protester hit Murdoch senior in the face with a shaving-foam pie, receiving a right hook from the much younger Mrs Murdoch for his trouble. 

Much later than expected Rebekah Brooks was called to give evidence but I was left none the wiser whether all three senior managers of the most influential media empire were completely ignorant of malpractice within their own organisation or whether their briefings were such that they simply managed to give nothing away. For an organisation that prided itself on exposing wrong-doing they failed to notice it in their own organisation. Earlier in the day, we heard the observation in response to evidence from the Metropolitan police to the Home Affairs Select Committee, that the Met and the News of the World were on a merry-go-round with the Met employing ex-NoW journalists and Met officers working for News Corp.


Next it is the turn of the Prime Minister to explain why, contrary to all the advice given to him, he employed Chancellor George Osborne's choice of ex-NoW editor Andy Coulson as his spin doctor. Will he will be as ignorant as the rest of them? Deceived, sorry and bewildered as characterised by Murdoch senior: “I feel that the people I trusted, I don't know at what level, let me down and I think they behaved disgracefully, betrayed the company and me and it's for them to pay. I think that frankly I'm the best person to clear this up.” Hmmm!


Postscript

A report on the Home Affairs Select Committee conclusions can be read here.

Chicken and foul egg

Despite News Corp's 'bad egg' image, the PM is

reported to have chickened out of asking Murdoch

to withdraw his BSkyB bid.

Postscript

Shallow is the word that springs immediately to mind.


Kick the ball into touch until it becomes yesterday's news in six months time or so, perhaps closing his remaining titles in the meantime, then throw him the much more profitable BSkyB prize. Who is running Britain? Murdoch!

"We are all in this together." (14)

The Prime Minister's conduct has not been without criticism.

Upstairs downstairs - NHS reform

Acknowledgemet

Government plans for reform of the National Health Service are under fire before they have been officially published. While cutting expenditure left, right and centre the Government has already made a start in lining the pockets of the private sector. The average patient may be more than a little bemused that General Practices that cannot cope with patient demands for appointments will be expected to spend billions of pounds trying to arrange appropriate care from a business led delivery service which puts profit first.

Despite his Freudian slip, Mr Cameron heaps praise on the NHS based on his family's experience of maternity care and the care of his disabled child. If I were PM or any other high profile minister with my wife in a maternity hospital I would be amazed if the staff didn't ensure that the service provided was more than adequate. In reality there are endless stories of crises in the maternity service. At the other end of life's span, 'care' of the elderly is often atrocious sometimes bordering on cruelty. Treatment for Illness during life's journey can be a lottery. The care Ivan Cameron received before his early death was clearly appreciated by his bereaved parents but is not typical. He benefited from a purpose-built medical centre in the basement of his home but many have to struggle to survive, often in poverty and receive indifferent care when it is needed most.  

Whatever Mr Cameron's experience of the NHS it certainly isn't typical. He benefits from a system in which private care is available to the wealthy until complex treatment is needed, then the NHS picks up the tab. That change is necessary is undeniable. Whether this is the way to go about it must be a huge political gamble and may yet come to haunt him. - Claire Rayner's dying words were “Tell David Cameron that if he screws up my beloved NHS I'll come back and bloody haunt him.”

The complete Aso

Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, aged 32

Arrived in the UK from Iraq in 2001

Failed asylum seeker

Hit and run killer after leaving a 12 yr old child to die on the road

Drugs possession

Harassment

Criminal damage

Theft

Burglary

Driving while disqualified

Driving without a license

Driving without insurance

In fact a complete and utter a*s**o** yet allowed to remain in the UK to avoid his human rights being violated. His victim's father is an honest, hard-working, loyal tax-payer who has lost his only child through the actions of a criminal and is left with no family. Justice for him has been denied. Why have the judges given so much weight to the fact that a criminal has married and begat two children? Are they unaware of the marriage of convenience fiddles that allow people to stay in our over-crowded, hospitality abused country?

In 1998 David Cameron wanted to do something about abuses of Human Rights legislation. It's about time he did. If his memory fails him, he needs only watch the video in this report to be reminded of why urgent action is needed.