Brainwashed

"No more lies and fairy tales."

Answering a question at the Senedd about the inclusion of trans athletes in sport, the First Minister, Mark Drakeford, acknowledged it was an "argument that divides people" but confirmed that he believes "transgender women are women" after being pushed to define what a woman is during a session at the Senedd.

Mr Drakeford said: "My starting point is the same as Penny Mordaunt’s – the UK minister responsible at the time – who said that the UK Government’s starting point was that transgender women are women. That’s my starting point in this debate...I do not understand the point that the member makes that you can be too inclusive. To me, inclusivity is absolutely what we should be aiming for here.

He is wrong. Inclusivity has become a nightmare, forcing people to accept what logic dictates is absurd. It is imposed in the workplace and in schools with individuals demanding the use of preferred pronouns. Everyone is being caught up in a charade that attracts accusations of homophobia if there is any hint of dissent as J K Rowling discovered for tweeting that 'transgender women cannot change their biological sex'.  

A man may go through various procedures to make him appear to be a woman but male cannot be changed to female or vice versa. 

Some poor souls embark on irreversible procedures which they later very much regret. The above video was posted in support of a Twitter thread by @TullipR which reads: "I want to tell everyone what they took from us, what irreversible really means, and what that reality looks like for us. No one told me any of what I’m going to tell you now." The description is heart-rending as is the video.

All the more disturbing, then, to read that the World Professional Association for Transgender Health  has lowered its recommended minimum age for starting gender transition treatment, including sex hormones to 14 with some surgeries done at age 15 or 17.

According to a trans activist woman who detransitioned in 2018 many people who have gender reassignment regret the decision and want to return to their original sex. Charlie Evans says that hundreds of people who want to return to their original gender have contacted her since she announced her de-transition and stopped taking her hormone therapy. 

She said, "The number of young people seeking gender transition is at the highest it has ever been, but little is reported about how many of them regret the decision later, finding they are unhappy with their new gender."

Others counter that it was the best thing they ever did. One trans woman speaking on the BBC's Prejudice and Pride programme claimed just that, largely it appeared because she was able to buy and wear a pair of women's suede boots which she had coveted for years, a relatively harmless desire compared with the trauma of a penectomy. 

She had been married and had a family before transitioning but the happiness felt by her and those like her is no excuse for expecting the rest of us to accept self identification theories made fashionable in gender studies .

But where is the leadership?

We should be able to expect more from our political leaders than a nod to what is trendy in defiance of the facts.

NHS miscarriage statistics illustrates the absurdity of pandering to the few. In this example 'Women' was changed to 'people' because "the word woman in the eyes of the NHS is a word which dare not speak its name all because they are afraid of upsetting a tiny minority in the intolerant trans activist cult."

We should expect more not only from our political leaders but our religious leaders, trendy bishops who preach inclusivity and diversity contrary to biblical teaching. 

As one commentator put it, bishops these days are more likely to be informed by the Guardian than by the Bible.

Postscript [18.06.2022]

From The Telegraph (£): "We are sacrificing our children on the altar of a brutal, far-Left ideology. The medical profession is crumbling in response to radical transgender activists" - JORDAN PETERSON

Video reading here:

Bishop steals clothes

"Be joyful and keep the faith!"                                                                                                                                                                       Source: Credo Cymru

                             

Credo Cymru (Forward in Faith Wales) provides a voice for traditional believers in the Church in Wales:

"Founded in July 1993 following the creation of a Bill by the Governing Body of the Church in Wales to allow women to become ordained as priests in that Anglican Province, Credo Cymru aims to uphold: the faith handed down from Christ by the apostles : the faith of Saint David and all the saints of Wales : the faith of the historic mainstream of Anglican Christians." 

                      Their motto:

                              "Be joyful and keep the faith!"

which comes from last words traditionally spoken by Saint David to his monks: "Be joyful and keep the faith. Do those little things you have seen and heard from me."

It was astonishing, therefore, to hear the bishop of St Davids open her sermon in advance of St David's Day with those words when she preached on 'The last words of St David' in a service broadcast live by BBC Radio 4 from St Davids Cathedral on Sunday last.

St David was a 6th century Welsh bishop who lived a monastic life far removed from the life of the first woman bishop in the Church in Wales.

The Monastic Rule of David prescribed that monks had to pull the plough themselves without draught animals, must drink only water and eat only bread with salt and herbs, and spend the evenings in prayer, reading and writing. No personal possessions were allowed: even to say "my book" was considered an offence. He lived a simple life and practised asceticism, teaching his followers to refrain from eating meat and drinking beer (Wiki).

It is possible, though improbable, that Joanna had no idea that she was stealing the clothes of Credo Cymru when she launched into her sermon: "Lords, brothers and sisters, rejoice and keep your faith and the Creed and do the little things you have heard and seen of me."

In ignorance of Credo Cymru's position or not, there is no excuse for masquerading as a guardian of the traditional faith of the Church when she and similar thinkers have diluted it to accommodate secular moods and ideas.

Anyone in Wales who, against all the odds, has struggled to keep the faith spoken of by St David has been ignored or weeded out of the Church in Wales along with orthodox Anglicans in other provinces that have unilaterally decided that after 2,000 years they know better than the Apostles and their successors, casting aside scripture and tradition in favour of self advancement and self satisfaction.

That bishop Joanna should choose the last words of St David to enhance her own position as one who follows in the footsteps of St David is beyond farce. It is a slap in the face for all faithful Anglicans who have rejected the revisionism engaged in by the 129th Bishop of St Davids and the rest of the bench of bishops.

It is an insult to those who have kept the faith after the bench of bishops deprived them of the sacramental assurance and pastoral oversight promised when the Church in Wales unilaterally ordained women in defiance of the wishes of the majority of Christians, including most of the 85 million members of the worldwide Anglican Communion .

By comparison the tiny Church in Wales has 44,000 members on its Electoral Roll, only 27,000 of whom regularly attend Sunday worship yet their bishops continue to claim that the Church in Wales is part of the Apostolic Church because the Nicene Creed forms the basis of Anglicanism, ignoring the fact that they have departed from the agreed common beliefs expressed in the Creed.

 Listening to Joanna's sermon with no knowledge of her background, one would have thought she was preaching to the faithful at a Credo Cymru service:

"Keep your faith, keep the faith. The faith Dewi Sant tells the community to hold onto is not a faith of their own imagining. It is the faith of the Christian community, taught first by those who had met the risen Jesus.

A faith then handed down on through the early Christian centuries and summed up in the Nicene Creed. The faith statement put together by the Church in the fourth century.

The Creed expresses the core of the Christian faith and is held in common by countless millions of Christians today."

The problem for Joanna Penberthy is that the faith held in common by countless millions of Christians today is not the diluted faith of the Church in Wales, the Church of England and other provinces which have adopted a faith dominated by feminism and sexual freedom under a banner of love which is more akin to early paganism and its priestesses.

The Christian faith as expressed in the Nicene Creed has been adapted unilaterally to allow women bishops: "The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church."

The faith expounded by the bishop of St Davids would not be recognised by St David. To imply otherwise is an insult to those who strive faithfully to "do those little things you have seen and heard" from St David.

Different, but inferior?

Traditionalist Anglicans will be familiar with the sort of tactics used by the inappropriately named Equal Love campaign. In 2010 The Rev Sharon Ferguson, a lesbian church minister fighting to overturn the ban on same-sex marriages revealed that she had been 'sent abusive messages' since launching her campaign. Familiar tactics in a campaign of of half truth and dissimulation. 

Complaints from 'equal rights' campaigners about receiving abusive messages and being spat upon are not uncommon despite hard evidence when to my knowledge filth laden hate mail has been received in the opposite direction. 'Different' these agitators may be in the sense of being a vociferous minority but 'inferior'? Such suggestions are used solely to gain support by implying discrimination from people who fail to see that discrimination is, in reality, against those who do not clamour to change everything only to the advantage of minorities regardless of the cost to the majority. What they seek is not equality but dominance, the very thing they complain about in their power struggle using religion and the church as though it were a secular institution rather than the vehicle of faith that brings people closer to God.

In her campaign for so-called equality the Rev Sharon Ferguson said: “The system we currently have is discriminatory and segregates people. It is not acceptable in this day and age. As a person of faith, I want to get married." To get married implies taking a husband when in fact her desire is to share her life with another woman. That is her privilege. The law has been changed to ensure that she and those like her not disadvantaged. But this is not enough for so-called equal love campaigners. We do not judge how couples live their lives but however they wish to see it, a homosexual partnership is not the same as the union between a man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony for the procreation of children. They can call it whatever else they like but it is not marriage as understood by the majority of people handed down by tradition and custom for thousands of years so why pretend that it is? To suggest that these couples are made to feel inferior if they are not allowed to be 'married' is a problem of their own making. 

The trendy list of gay marriage supporters is growing and, perhaps unsurprisingly, is now afflicting the Anglican church following its abandonment of apostolic tradition. Since the Prime Minister decided to come out in favour of gay marriage, politicians and celebrities have joined the clamour to satisfy people who will never be satisfied until the rest of us are completely subjugated. In a classic piece of dissimulation the Guardian has come out in favour claiming that 'the argument that gay marriage undermines straight marriage is as unconvincing as it is insulting'. The reasons they find so convincing are neatly unpacked line by line here but it is unlikely that campaigners will be interested in the facts.

The women who oppose female bishops

It is rare to read of opposition to women bishops when the trendy think they have a monopoly on truth. Never mind that they do not understand the argument, substituting secular values to fill the theological vacuum they so readily display.

How refreshing then to read of the stand taken by Emma Forward in a Guardian article yesterday. Emma nails the lie that Women and the Church (WATCH) accurately represent the Anglican tradition. WATCH may represent some women in the church, principally themselves, with their distorted view of Christianity that puts self above everything but they do not represent the many thousands of women who put faith above personal ambition. Predictably Christina Rees takes up her 'mightier than the sword' pen: "The impression I often have of these women is that they are highly intelligent and in positions of authority in their own profession. A lot of them show signs of leadership but it feels wrong to them to have female priests. If they had been formed in a different church tradition they themselves would be ordained or they would be in a position of leadership in their own church."

How condescending. If Ms Rees and her chums had formed a different church rather than invade the Anglican Church to peddle their secular wares before our limp liberal clergy we wouldn't be in the sort of mess we find ourselves today. 

Steps

"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

After man first set foot on the moon, mankind was left with the historic statement, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind". Everyone understood that the statement was not intended to exclude women but to encompass all humanity in the technological advancement of mankind which has seen men and women astronauts venture into space, part of a sequence of small steps that led to Kennedy's vision of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth".

Around the same time people in the Anglican church were taking what were represented as small steps, not towards a giant leap for mankind, Christ did that, but in what now can be seen clearly as a secular policy in furtherance of gender politics in the church, a process which is about to destroy the faith of many Christians in the name of feminism, one which already has done for many. In my previous Blog entry I referred to a Guardian article by Andrew Brown. One paragraph continues to rankle:

   "... there will be female bishops, as there are already female priests, and these will be treated exactly the same as male ones – except by the men who don't want to treat them equally and who believe that God has called them to undermine women's authority wherever it appears." [My emphasis.]

What was initially regarded as an honourable position in the Anglican Church, a church which assured traditionalists that they would continue to have a place, has been turned into one of having to suffer accusations of misogyny, prejudice, discrimination and, now, a "a belief that God has called them to undermine women's authority wherever it appears". How crass. God made man and woman in his own image, not hermaphrodites but both male and female, equal, neither superior nor inferior but with different roles in creation. Perhaps Mr Brown doesn't realise that both men and women, male and female, are equally opposed to the ordination of women priests and bishops, woman more vehemently in my experience but more prone to suffer in silence as they do not possess the strident streak exhibited by those who presume to speak for them as implied by the incorrectly named WATCH - Women and the Church. Women's authority does not depend on being a priest or a bishop. In Britain women are rightly employed at all levels in society, but 'authority' in the Anglican Church has become a banner used by people who have sold their souls to secularism in direct contradiction to Christ's example in choosing male Apostles, a tradition handed down in His Apostolic Church from a time when pagan priestesses were common.

The 'small' steps that turned deaconesses into deacons thus permitting their ordination as priests have now become that giant leap for the Church of England with the proposals before Synod to ordain women as successors to the Apostles in defiance of the wider Catholic and Orthodox Churches with whom we share our creed. To brand men and women  who oppose this innovation and whose only desire is to keep the Apostolic faith as 'undermining women's authority' is as absurd as it is offensive.

We will all be changed

A further drop in Church of England attendance has been reported. Average Sunday attendance fell from 944,400 in 2009 to 923,700 the following year, continuing the long-term downward trend. Hardly the result one might have expected after the church decided to make itself more relevant to society by becoming ever more secular.

In an unhelpful Blog article for the Guardian on the prospect of women bishops in the CofE, Andrew Brown writes: "The Church of England's fudge on female bishops is breathtaking". He  concludes with the comment: "It may be possible to fudge questions about the nature of a communion wafer in this way. But I don't think it will do for a matter of employment law." So the Body of Christ can be fudged but Its administration by the sacred ministry is something that should be determined by employment law! No wonder so many churches are for sale with plenty more to come as attendance dwindles.

The theme of this year's Week of Prayer for Christian Unity is 'We will be changed'. From the Churches Together site:

"Change is at the heart of our Christian faith. Saint Paul said that anyone who is in Christ is a new creation, and we are called to live as children in the light. 

The theme for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity 2012 comes to us from the churches in Poland, who have reflected upon their own experience as a nation, and in particular how, as a nation, they have been changed and transformed by the many upheavals of their history, and sustained by their faith.

Change is also at the heart of the ecumenical movement. When we pray for the unity of the church we are praying that the churches that we know and which are so familiar to us will change as they conform more closely to Christ. This is an exciting vision, but also a challenging one. Furthermore, when we pray for this transforming unity we are also praying for change in the world."

The upheavals in the Anglican church may have brought joy to some but for the church it has been a disaster with litigation and arguments about the nature of the priesthood, gay and lesbian ordination and same sex marriage which no doubt is now regarded as acceptable on the grounds that there is 'no theological objection', the Anglican justification for female ordination. These changes have had a wholly negative impact on the church when our aim should be unity with the Roman Catholic church from which we have become separated and the Orthodox Church.


If women in England and Wales are to be ordained bishops because of secular employment laws, then 'we will all be changed'. We will be changed but in the wrong direction, choosing Protestantism rather than the ancient churches of Rome and Orthodoxy, the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of our baptism, driving us further than ever from church unity. As Synod members prepare to vote, they should not be influenced by secular employment laws but follow Christ's example and listen to His prayer that we all may be one.

The two faces of Islam

 

Spot the difference? 

The picture on the left shows what is left of another burnt-out church, this one in Zanzibar. Just one of many atrocities against Christians carried out in over 50 countries around the world with little or no comment let alone condemnation. 


The second picture is of a Mosque in Woking, Surrey, built in 1889, the first mosque to be built in the UK and Northern Europe. When Conservative Home reported on Saudi Arabia's funding of Islamism in 2006 there were thought to be around 1,600 mosques in Britain. Clicking on 'All towns' in this link now shows 1993 mosques, a 25% increase. Sunderland lists two, Sunderland Masjid and Masjid ibn Taymeeyahwith capacities of 345 and 195 respectively, 'including women' with the note, "The five times daily salaah in congregation in the masjid is enjoined on men, not on women. Women's salaah is expected to be discreet and private and therefore performed at home. About 72% of UK masjids make some provision for women, but many of these do so by allocating space only when specially asked for. Larger purpose-built masjids often have a gallery over the main masjid room, part or all of which is for women's use. (Excerpt from our book, Islam and Muslims in Britain - A Guide.)"


"The former, Millfield Mosque, also know as the Mosque of Sunderland, is illegal. Sunderland City Council has already agreed to sell the disused vehicle depot in St Mark’s Road, Millfield, which is hoped to provide a replacement for the “illegal” mosque operating further up the road. Many residents are furious at the plans, with one claiming Millfield will “end up being Mosquefield” and the council has received 623 letters of objection and a petition bearing 1,462 signatures." All part of the democratic process? Not at all. This is the customary cry of 'Islamophobia!' designed to silence protesters along with critics of the Islamification of Britain and beyond.

Why do we tolerate the Islamification of our country when there are ample reports worldwide which plainly illustrate the Islamic agenda resulting in death and destruction? All mosque building in the UK should be banned at least until there is clear evidence that Muslims accord to Christians and others  the same freedoms they demand for themselves.


Update - Report from Iraq: In a country that used to be home to around five million Christians, only 200,000 remain today. Many have fled north to the relative safety of Kurdistan, while others have left the country altogether. [17/01/12]


Postscript
From today's Guardian [16/01/12], 'Sharia law compatible with human rights, argues leading barrister'. Googling 'sharia law sentences' will find plenty of examples to challenge this; there just two here and here. 


The Guardian article ends with the 'Top five sharia myths', the first about amputation claiming that 'Of the world's 50 or so Muslim-majority states, only about half a dozen allow for amputations'. Oh good show, that's OK then - unless your country is one of the half a dozen. Similarly, 'Stoning is mentioned in the Qur'an' with a nuanced  denial that victims can contemplate while rocks of just the right size are enthusiastically hurled by those without sin. Again, 'Capital punishment for apostasy is mentioned by the Qur'an' - The Qur'an repeatedly warns believers who abandon their faith that they will have to account to God in the afterlife, but it does not provide for their punishment on earth. It was hadiths that later served to justify the death penalty. So that's OK too, death under hadith not the Qur'an.


I shall not comment on each but I can't ignore 'That suicide bombing is permissible under sharia law' with a duplicitous denial . Go to position 29 on this link for a detailed explanation of this deception. It explains that suicide bombers are regarded as martyrs dying for their cause and earning themselves a place in paradise. Better still, if you haven't already done so, watch the whole video. If you would rather take the article on trust, you should at least watch this video to understand the two faces of Islam.

Alan Turing's stamp of approval and petition for a pardon.

Alan Turing (1912 - 1954)

One of the greatest tragedies of all time is the avoidable death and consequent early loss to civilization of Alan Turing, the master codebreaker and visionary responsible for the computing technology we have today. The most gifted man of his generation, regarded by some amongst the most gifted in the history of the world, he committed suicide after being punished by the state for his homosexuality despite everything he had done to help win WW2, saving millions of lives in the process and giving birth to the computer age.

In November last year, Channel 4 broadcast a moving TV documentary drama which I hope will be repeated for the benefit of anyone who missed it. Today the Guardian has details of stamps to be issued by the Royal Mail in February illustrating ten prominent people in their 'Britons of Distinction' series. Alan Turing is among them.

In 2009 Gordon Brown issued an unequivocal apology to Alan Turing, saying the country owed him a huge debt but that is not enough. He deserves a pardon. An e-petition has been been raised with a closing date of 23/11/2012. You can sign it here - but only because Alan Turing made it possible!

Political correctness gone mad.

"Happy Hollyday!"

"Happy Christmas Holiday Thomas!" This is the latest effort of those who prefer to call persons chairs and make everyone feel thoroughly guilty if they don't conform to their overbearingly harsh regime of political correctness.

I missed an earlier report in the Telegraph which broke the news that the television company which is recording new adventures of Thomas the Tank Engine is re-branding Christmas as "the holidays" to comply with “politically correct” thinking.

The fact that the creator of Thomas the Tank Engine was a priest who said that he was a clergyman first and a children's author second would have little effect on persons who regard political correctness as all. This comes on the top of a bizarre decision by the BBC to drop BC and AD in favour of the non-Christian, BCE and CE – Before Common Era and Common Era.


Irritating as these stories are, for pure crassness the pulpit storming, Peter Tatchell takes the biscuit. In a piece for the Guardian he writes: 

"How would you feel if the government banned black people from getting married and made them register their relationships through a separate system called civil partnerships? Most of us would condemn it as racist to have different laws for black and white people. Well, black couples are not banned from marriage but lesbian and gay couples are. We are fobbed off with civil partnerships." 

Also, "Don't get me wrong, civil partnerships are an important advance. But they are not equality. Separate laws are not equal laws. Civil partnerships are a legal form of sexual apartheid. They create a two-tier system of partnership recognition: one law for heterosexuals (civil marriage) and another for same-sex couples (civil partnership)."

I guess this all started because our way of life irritated feminists, then Islamists, now LGTB and so on. If I were an Islamist, feminist, lesbian I may be happy but being none of them, like many others I am becoming more and more irritated by these PC persons. I regard civil partnerships as a sensible levelling for those in stable relationships outside marriage and to condemn them as the sexual apartheid of racists is a new low in political correctness but they want it only their way, never mind the rest of us, including children used to looking forward to their Christmas stories.

The Three Wise Persons

After a brief interlude, back to the story of the Three Wise Persons travelling from the East to the land of His Darkness to find a re-birth solution to the mess created in the Church in Wales now that religion has given way to gender politics and relitivism. First, apologies to the last member of the panel appointed, Professor Patricia Peattie, former Chair of the Episcopal Church in Scotland’s Standing Committee. Try as I may I can't find a picture of her - unlike the Chairman, the Rt Rev Lord Richard Harries, former Bishop of Oxford of whom, unsurprisingly, there are numerous pictures. What the other panel member, Professor Charles Handy, former professor at the London Business School, will make of the overblown management of the now tiny Church in Wales is anyone's guess but as they set out on their journey, "Bazzer" is sure to have let it be known that he doesn't like to hear anything unkind said about him, ie, views opposed to his own. Given "Bazzer's" feminist outlook and need for parity it is strange that female representation is in a minority unless that is something he wishes to emphasise.


Had I not been delayed in putting together this post by Archbishop Rowan Williams' briefing on 'humanising of the ordained ministry' I would have missed an interesting point. Yesterday the Blog Let Nothing You Dismay carried an item about the conversion to Roman Catholicism three years ago (in 2008) of an Anglican priest, Una Kroll. Other ancients who have suffered the whole painful crusade of the Movement for the Ordination of Women (MOW) may remember her cry ‘we asked you for bread and you gave us a stone’. Looking through the Church in Wales web site there is a link where people can find out more about the Anglican Communion Covenant. Among the contributions is this intriguing entry:

 "Una Kroll - 07/04/2011
I am a priest in the Church of Wales. Ordained in 1997. I do not want to see the Covenant come into force as it is not Anglican to punish peopple for holding to their conscience. The Instruments of Communion already in existence offer us all a chance of freely accepting Communion with those who dissent from our own preferential opinions and is a profound expression of Anglicanism. Una Krol."


Unless the Catholic Herald story referred to on LNYD is a complete hoax how can this be explained? Only last year an article appeared in the Guardian in which Kroll referred to "the Act of Synod [which] introduced structural discrimination against women", the same distorted cry we hear from her feminist friends in WATCH and GRAS. 


In open meetings in each diocese the Panel will be asking five questions, the first of which is, "What aspect of your diocese and the Church in Wales, do you feel most positive about?" For many in Wales, particularly those not finding favour with their Archbishop the answer has to be 'nothing'. I would be interested to know if Una Kroll turns up to offer them anything from her wide experience but if they are really wise, the Panel will make an excuse and leave by another route.

The Ministry of Chaos strikes again

I can't think of a more absurd excuse than the Transport Secretary's for increasing the speed limit to 80 MPH on motorways in England and Wales - 'because so many motorists already break the law and the police don't enforce it'. This from the 'party of law and order'! Police forces have already blamed scarce resources for failure to monitor speed violations so where will they find the resources to fulfil a promise to monitor the new 80 MPH limit with far fewer resources? When they do check, the most common formula applied for giving 'leeway' is '10% plus 2mph' = 79mph before action is taken. If the same formula were applied the actual top speed is more likely to be 90 MPH. 

Good reasons for challenging Mr Hammond's decision are outlined in the BBC report here yet many are in favour of the change. This is hardly surprising if so many people flout the law, illustrated by this Guardian poll which, at the time of writing, shows 68% and rising in favour of the change with two days to go for voting. Surely every shop-lifter, pimp or drug pusher would vote to legitimise their law breaking if given half a chance.

Even if the reason given were legitimate, there is a much better case for reducing the speed limit. The Green Party's chief scientist is quoted in the BBC link (above) as saying that there was a 20% increase in fuel consumption and emissions between driving at 70 and 80. Reducing oil consumption and emissions are important environmental considerations which should be given extra weight. I also question the suggestion that everything must be done at a quicker pace. Consideration for others, on and off the road, is now barely noticeable. If anything, we need to slow down and restore the better mannered culture of 'after you' which was far less stressful. 


Postscript
I have just been reading the news about the M4 being shut this afternoon after a six vehicle crash. Not long ago South Wales was virtually cut-off when the nearby  Brynglas Tunnels were closed after a serious accident. The supposed few minutes saved on journey times by increasing the speed limit will be more than outweighed by the predicted increase in accidents and will cost more lives. The government appears unconcerned with the 1% predicted increase conveniently forgetting that it is 100% for the unlucky ones, often at no fault of their own.

Not in our backyards - in yours!

George Osborne and Eric Pickles favour changes to planning regulations but
oppose developments in their own backyards. Photograph: Martin Argles

This duplicity caught my eye when it appeared in the Guardian 10 days ago. Today there is an opportunity to do something about it.

For those wishing to protest against the "breathtaking hypocrisy" of Ministers who want to scar what's left of our countryside while protecting their own little bits of England, 38 Degrees have lanched a 'Save our countryside' petition. Readers may wish to add their names.

Raped!

Two stories caught my eye in this morning's newspaper. First the disgrace of foreign nurses being registered to work in the UK despite not having seen a patient for twenty years while British nurses without up-to-date training have had to leave the profession. Hopefully, as the scandal has emerged in evidence to a House of Lords inquiry, someone somewhere will get a grip on this farce and do something about it, simply by ignoring the plainly stupid EU rules if necessary.

Far more disturbing and with little or no hope for the victims is the ongoing disgrace of rape and slavery in the (so called) Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Guardian video here is harrowing enough but look a little deeper on the Internet and the story is even more harrowing where in addition to rape being used as a weapon, children as young as five are raped through ignorance and superstition. Men are not immune either.

Poor people in many countries suffer in misery to provide the life styles to which we in the West have become accustomed and the best of intentions in dealing with human rights abuses can go awry. Meanwhile the misery of men and particularly of women and children continues. The United Nations organisation say they are addressing the challenges but compare the glitzy image in this video with that revealed in the Guardian video above.  

Using any computer or using any mobile phone to text a friend has been made possible by the blood, sweat and tears of raped women and children who mine the necessary minerals. It doesn't bear thinking about and, tragically, for the most part we don't but as the Libyan conflict subsides, is it too much to hope that world leaders will turn their attention to these suffering women and children or will they wait for the next shoot-out to wade-in in the hope of claiming another victory?

So what will be under the next stone?

Those at No 10 are now saying that the Met's Chief has questions to answer following revelations concerning their involvement with the Murdoch empire.  Earlier it was those in No 10 who had questions to answer following accusations of lack of judgement by the Prime Minister. As each side blames each other the size of the web is seen to be ever wider.


The performance of senior police officers before the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee was a revelation in itself with all the blame for the problem being heaped on News Corp's unwillingness to be co-operative, an interesting testimony from senior police officers charged with upholding the law. The evidence of former Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman who went on to be employed by News Corp as a journalist was delivered in a manner which I thought ignorant if not contemptuous. From talking with others I gather I was not alone in wondering how he managed to get employed at all let alone rise to Assistant Commissioner given the manner of his delivery in response to the Select Committee's genuine concerns. 


Every stone turned reveals yet another Murdoch link so how was the lid kept firmly on the story for so long? Reading this special report on how things were run in the News of the World shows that screwing information out of anybody in any circumstances at any cost was the name of the game. The willingness of journalists to invade the private lives of politicians and others enabled News Corp to impose their view with impunity advancing their own cause whether or not it was in our best interests. 


Many MPs and journalists now claim to have been unhappy with the situation but without the dogged persistence of the Guardian, a couple of MPs and the private actions of victims, no doubt we would have seen the BSkyB bid waved through enabling Murdoch's empire to tighten its grip even more on our apparently impotent politicians. All credit to them for their persistence.

NHS reforms

The 'listening' exercise.

Postscript

Reactions to yesterday's re-launch from the Independent, Mirror and Guardian.

Beggars belief...

Hot on the heels of Cranmer's post, "Tis Pity She's a Whore - the Virgin Mary", I watched a video report in the Independent which gives details of  "a controversial book to be published on Good Friday [which] has caused outrage for its portrayal of Jesus as a bisexual drug addict." Christians are expected to tolerate such religious 'stone-throwing', turning the other cheek rather than going on the rampage killing innocent people in fits of righteous indignation with no regard for the rights of individuals in their own land.

On Monday (11 April) the BBC's 'Panorama' broadcast "Living with the Ayatollah" highlighted human rights abuses in Iran. Ironically Iran's Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance Mohammad Hosseini has been urging European countries to avoid encouraging 'Islamophobia'. The Guardian has taken up a similar cry with "Islamophobia on the rise as austerity bites". 

What utter tosh. The maxim 'attack is the best method of defence' cannot hide the fact that claims of "Islamophobia" are used simply as devices to deflect well earned concern and criticism of double standards.

Postscript
The University of Exeter's European Muslim Research Centre was forced to issue an apology for serious errors of fact in their academic report Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Hate Crime: UK Case Studies referred to here which "may lead a reader to misconstrue the conduct, actions and the intentions of Councillors". Conservative MP Robert Halfon  has demanded an explanation from Exeter University over a donation from the Middle East broadcaster Al-Jazeera. I know universities are short of funds but what next?

Government washing hands of responsibility?

According to a report in The Guardian today, the Head of the Civil Service has ordered an inquiry into the government's localism reforms amid growing concerns that its "big society" plans risk eroding the basic democratic principles of transparency and ministerial accountability.

About time too. Shifting responsibility from Whitehall to local councils, GP's and voluntary groups all seems designed to ensure that Ministers cannot be held to account. Added to their plan for reducing the number of MPs to increase their parliamentary majority, the government must be hoping for an extended period of power without responsibility.

Turn the Other Cheek David

While The Daily Telegraph continues to take its few pieces of silver for disclosing what it judges to be wrongdoing, there is news from The Guardian that David Laws could play an informal role in advising Danny Alexander who replaced him as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Good news indeed putting our recovery above self and a good lesson for The Daily Telegraph as it continues to put profit above the stability of the coalition Government in its struggle to put the country back on its feet.

This solution was first suggested to me by an old friend after The Telegraph ran its story but I thought the notion too unlikely an outcome. The idea has many attractions not least for David Laws who has been considering whether to stand down as an MP. That would be disastrous not only for his supportive constituents but also for himself in losing a second chance of an input to the job he felt called to do.

If he goes the country will the loser. He made no profit from his financial arrangements, in fact the tax payer could have paid out more if other arrangements had been made, and he was not living in a partnership in the way the rules were drafted. As ever in this country people are so obsessed with what others do in the bedroom that they are blind to the important things in life.

David Law’s resignation speech was a model of integrity. If he can be persuaded to turn the other cheek and stay on as an advisor the slap would be felt by his accusers.

PC Causes Death of Humour

Do you find this funny?

“THIS WAS NOMINATED FOR BEST JOKE OF THE YEAR - WORTH SHARING

A Somalian arrives in London as a new immigrant to the UK .

He stops the first person he sees walking down the street and says ........ 'Thank you Mr. British for letting me in this country, giving me housing, money for food, free medical care, free education and no taxes!'

The passer by says, 'You are mistaken, I am Mexican!'

The man goes on and encounters another passer by. 'Thank you for having such a beautiful country here in the UK !'

The person says, 'I not British, I Polish!'

The new arrival walks further, and the next person he sees he stops, shakes his hand and says, 'Thank you for the wonderful Britain !'

That person puts up his hand and says, 'I am from Russia , I am not from Britain !'

He finally sees a nice lady and asks, 'Are you a British?'

She says, 'No, I am from Africa !'

Puzzled, he asks her, 'Where are all the British?'

The African lady checks her watch and says ...'Probably at work'

IF YOU DON'T PASS THIS ON TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS YOU WILL RECEIVE THREE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ABSOLUTELY FREE” [Copied as seen]

In the old days we may have heard a joke like this in the Music Halls or on television. Nowadays they are circulated on the internet or by mobile phone texts.

Intrigued to discover the origin of its nomination for best joke of the year a quick ‘Google’ showed that it had been circulated widely on the internet, especially on alternative humour sites. Then I discovered a report in the Guardian that two Tory councillors had been suspended over “racist email” for sending the joke to Tory MPs. Here are some paragraphs from the report:

“Two Tory councillors have been suspended from the party after sending a racist joke to an email list including Ribble Valley Tory MP Nigel Evans, the mayor of South Ribble, and fellow Conservative councillors. Simon Farnsworth, a Ribble Valley councillor, sent the joke on to Ken Hind, his fellow councillor and a former Tory parliamentary candidate in Selby and Lancashire West at the 1997 and 1992 elections. Hind then sent it on to a long list of Tories, including Evans; DW Parkinson, the mayor of South Ribble; and other South Ribble and Ribble Valley councillors.

A Tory spokesman said: "Simon Farnsworth and Ken Hind have been suspended from the Party. The contents of this email have no place in the Conservative party." Hind said he apologised to "all those people from the nations mentioned in the joke. It was not my intention to insult their racial origins, and I deeply regret passing on this item as I recognise now that it could cause offence." He added: "In my daily life I deal with many people of different racial origins in our diverse community and in our relationships get on well with them. I deprecate those who are racist. On many occasions I have been outspoken in my condemnation of those who incite racial hatred and am committed to developing an integrated tolerant community in which all races creeds and religions live side by side in peace.

"I am privileged to name amongst my friends and associates many who are of Asian or African origin. I wish to emphasise that any apparent insult or criticism contained in the joke does not reflect my views or those of the Conservative party." Farnsworth has also been contacted for comment but had not responded at the time of publication. David Eccleston, who received the email by mistake and passed it to the Guardian, said that many people thought David Cameron "seems like a nice guy and he seems to care", but "these jokes bring you back to Earth with a bang because you realise that behind Cameron's call for 'change' are the same old nasty Conservative party – and that's not change." ”

The Guardian was not shy about printing the joke.

In the General Election, Immigration was identified as one of the main issues that bothered the electorate with varied perceptions of the benefits and problems. Humour has traditionally been used as a legitimate tool for dealing with problems but in this politically correct society we appear to have lost the ability to laugh at ourselves. When was the last time you had a really good laugh? Have you heard the one about the Scotsman, Welshman and the Irish man…..? Not anymore. Such traditional humour has been killed for political correctness and not just by having to say ‘person’. The basis of ‘humour’ these days has shifted to the use of four letter words such as ****, ****, and even ****.

What a joke.