Civil Liberties

Critic of Gay Pride police car gets reported for ‘Muslim mob’ joke

Inspector Mark Evans of Sussex Police is very proud of his new patrol car. So proud, in fact, that he tweeted about it, which is perfectly fine: it’s a free country. Eastbourne Pride and Hastings Pride are to be proudly policed by the new #pride car which will be #ByYourSide throughout. You must set aside your medieval bigotry and homophobic hate, and accept that if the police wish to spend their hard-pressed budget on making patrol cars fit for Noddy and Big Ears, that is their affair. It’s all about diversity and inclusion; approachability and bridge-building with minority communities. It is, if you will, heeding the exhortation of St Paul to become all things to all men in order that all might be defended equally for the sake of justice. Rainbow-coloured police cars are still empowered by the state to enforce the law, protect property, and limit civil disorder. If you think they look as though they belong in fairyland, your hate will only make Inspector Evans stronger.

This sort of thing really doesn’t help:

But when you put something like this out on Twitter, you’re almost fishing for a reaction. Best not to call it ‘incitement’, for Inspector Mark Evans is a senior police officer with many years experience and he knows incitement when he sees it (though he isn’t averse to a bit of stirring). There’s a summary of superficial reaction over on KentLive, most of it being concerned with the cost (£750) and policing credibility (“someone asking if the twitter account was ‘satire'”). There was some support, too: North Yorkshire Police thought the car was “Wow! Pretty!”, which makes you wonder why police officers don’t agitate to ditch their dreary uniforms and inject a permanent flash of Technicolor into law enforcement: the world of diverse communities and identities manifestly isn’t black and white (except perhaps for ISIS, but this car probably wouldn’t be very effective in policing that community).

The Devon & Cornwall Police LGBT Network took firm action against the hatred, and had a number of Twitter accounts silenced:

When is ‘hate’ hate, and when is it a joke?

Difficult one, that.

A ‘hate crime’ is defined as “any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.” So it’s all about perception: a joke may be perceived as hate, and that becomes an ‘incident‘, which must be reported. Hostility is defined as including “ill-will, ill-feeling, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike”. So it’s all about perception and feeling, both of which probably embrace this tweet:

Is it hateful to append ‘mob’ to ‘Muslims’? Is it hostile to mock the Sussex Police #pride car? Might it hurt LGBT feelings? Inspector Evans clearly thought so:

The problem here is that instead of reasoning with ‘The Outlaw’ to discover his concerns, Inspector Evans reaches instantly for the mute button – the permanent mute button, which is censorship. It is the same impulse which drives the Devon & Cornwall Police LGBT Network: “Multiple accounts reported & successfully removed”, they boast, as though the eradication of robust but justifiable criticism were good for society.

Here’s a Muslim mob exhorting the death and beheading of infidels: ‘Kill those who insult the Prophet’; ‘Behead those who mock Islam’; ‘Kill, Kill, Kill, Kill, Kill’…

Note that it’s the Muslim mob which is protected by the police: the frail old lady has to move along. It is unlikely that these police officers turned up to this protest in their #pride car. Surely, in order to express solidarity with this community and to help fight Islamophobic hate crime of the sort being meted out by this old lady, the police need to spend another £750 on a #sharia car? You know, something emblazoned with لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا ٱلله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ ٱلله. Isn’t that what equality demands? As long as they don’t confuse events by turning up to Gay Pride in the #sharia car and Islamist festivals in a #pride car, all will be well.

Is it really becoming unlawful to express concern about any of this? Is it really a breach of social media guidelines or Twitter’s terms and conditions to point out to a police officer the hypocrisy, absurdity and inconsistency of some of their ‘Diversity and Equality’ agendas? Do the police not grasp that their dour uniformity and standardised sobriety project credible authority and command public respect? Black and white are neutral, as law enforcement ought to be. Uniform colouring conveys objectivity and impartiality, not pandering to any single identity but present in the community for all, equally. Have they not considered that a Pride police car might actually deter certain people from approaching it to report a crime?

What shiny livery will the patrol cars of tomorrow be sporting in order to ‘reach out’ to persecuted or harassed minorities? Perhaps it’s impertinent to ask: it might offend against Inspector Evans’s snowflake sensitivities, and this blog will be reported (once again) for ‘hate’.

Good job he isn’t armed, isn’t it?

  • Busy Mum

    What happened to policing ‘without fear or favour’ and the Police Commissioners’ oath of impartiality?

    • Mike Stallard

      I think that I ought to report that. It is inciting hate crime ;0)

  • Mike Stallard

    More and more I feel that I am living at a huge music festival.You can take off all your clothes. You can go around arm in arm with people of your own sex. You can kiss them – with their permission. You can also listen to loud music banged out by people who do not know you but who you seem to regard as friends. You are brothers and sisters with everyone there except you do not know their names. You wave your arms and body about a bit in time to the deafening noise. And, of course, there is always soma…

    Just do not try and preach about the soma. Just do not try and say you are disgusted by the nudity. Just do not question other people’s activities. Always wear a brave smile. Live in a muddy tent and above all, never go the toilet! Oh – one other thing – you are perfectly able to show your disdain for people who are immoral – mauling children, talking about God and stuff, hating anyone – except immoral and wicked paedos and old farts.

    It is an open, friendly love in after all!

    • IrishNeanderthal

      Surely paedophilia happens in both forms: the child victim can be of the same or the opposite sex to the perpetrator.

      I am not sure what you mean by an “old fart”.

      When it comes to arm in arm, what about this?

      Hold hands in friendship – and be proud to be an African

  • I’m heading over to Twitter immediately to report @InspMarkEvans and @DCP_LGBT

    • Martin

      I think we should follow him and watch him very closely.

      • Martin

        Oh dear, the snowflake appears to have blocked me.

  • Watchman

    Can anybody explain why the police are promoting pride in sodomy. I’m content to allow them to practice what I regard as a perversion, but fail to see why they should demand my approval and fail to see why our police forces are assisting them in this.

    Is it the inspector who is offended or is he doing on the part of some hypothetical figure who he thinks may be offended? Isn’t the inspector guilty of incitement for displaying this vehicle with such pride knowing that there are many people who would disapprove of police resources being wasted in this way?

    • Dominic Stockford

      They are playing up to the 1.1% of the community that is the nastiest and loudest, I guess.

  • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

    I see that Justin ‘Baby Doc’ Trudeau attended a Gay Pride festivity wearing Ramadan socks…Ididn’t know you could buy Ramadan socks, probably not at Marks and Spencer’s though…This sort of nonsense has really got to stop, and these ‘bending over backwards’ stunts by the police are really too much. Mind you, suppose they are saturated with guilt, having spend decades watching closely what goes on in Gentleman’s Conveniences and arresting those who let it all hang out.

    • Manfarang

      Maybe Hudson’s Bay are doing a new line in socks.

  • David

    This seems to be a very partial and socially divisive colour scheme. It affirms just one minority group but not all those who may hold different opinions. The judgement of the decision makers seems most suspect. What happened to impartiality for public services, paid for by everyone ?

  • magnolia

    Whatever happened to the law’s “reasonable person”?

    Now some kind of floppy perceived by anyone, which takes no account whatever of the fact that some perceptions are inaccurate, or due to mental illness, or hyper-sensitivity, or paranoia, or thorough sense of humour failure, or indigestion, or dementia, or complete lack of common sense.

    Postmodernism-( for this is postmodernist ad absurda) is even old hat…….Bring back the reasonable person, fast, please.

    • writhledshrimp

      I don’t think Clapham has an omnibus any more, and if it did I am not sure the voyagers upon it would represent what they were once held to.

  • Dreadnaught

    Does the bonnet fly up and doors fall off when a colourful Constable Tumble toots the Nee-Naws?: It’s beyond parody.

    • Anton

      It’s a brilliant paint job!

      • Dreadnaught

        I suppose there’s something to be said for having an artistic bent; probably got colour co-ordinated seat covers too.

  • Intonsus

    crimestop thoughtcrime, all badthinkers must be sent to joycamp. vaporise unperson

    • magnolia

      There is a worrying lack of awareness of the difference between prediction and incitement. If some of the police need a clue shouting or waving placards suggesting the infidel be killed is incitement- incitement to murder. We the public hate, loathe and detest that such people are not instantly arrested.

      If I were to go and wave a placard suggesting any person or group of citizens should be killed my feet would not touch the ground and I would find myself arrested and facing sectioning or prison and disgrace, very quickly. Quite right too.

      So why is there little impartiality? Why do some get away with incitement to murder? Incitement to murder is a tremendous evil and Ignoring it leads to the public feeling insecure, cheated, and angry. It has to stop. There needs to be firm zero tolerance for such displayed incitements.

  • Inspector General

    A sodomised police car, whatever next! Does that car look over 16 to anybody? Perhaps Evans would be good enough to help with enquires on that, as the saying goes.

    These cars (and this crowd of law enforcers pinched the idea off Greater Manchester Police) go down very well with the chosen ones. They will swoon before it, call it ‘fabulous’ and ‘adorable’ and set up a Grindr account for it. Then they will ask for another just like it, at public expense naturally, and ‘marry’ the two off in some field…

    When Greater Manchester had similar car some years ago, instead of asking for volunteers to drive the abomination (so called LGBTIA ‘allies’ – the highest rank that can be bestowed on a non gay outsider) it was rostered to whomever was on the driving rota for the day. Apparently, that went down very badly and the victims were quite understandably furious. Much ribbing took place, as one might expect in the famed canteen culture of the rank and file. To overcome this vile hatred the canteen will probably close in the near future and members of the constabulary will be forced to enjoy a well deserved paper cup of tea sitting on the wall outside the station, so long as they don’t talk to any other officer, and weather permitting…

    Then, and only then, will GMP be forgiven.

  • Anton

    The police should refer themselves to the IPCC for wasting police time.

    • Inspector General

      or if anyone feels threatened by Evans, as they go about their lawful business which includes freedom of thought and expression.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      …and money.

  • CliveM

    Why does the Inspector think the LGBT Community are going to get all excited over a ‘My Little Pony/Gummy Bears’ police car?

    Could it get more condescending?

    • Inspector General

      That, sir, is the fabled Pink Unicorn. The Golden Calf of today, in a way, given a gay makeover.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

      • CliveM

        Never heard of the Invisible Pink Unicorn before. Oh well it’s good to learn something new.

        I suppose!

      • Hi

        Which is nothing to do with gays. It’s a philosophical thing like the church spaghetti monsters. That’s what the link says.

        • Inspector General

          Hannah. It’s been well groomed!

  • I think Lawrence Auster finally settled on this wording for his First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society: ‘The more troublesome, unassimilable, or dangerous a designated minority or non-Western group actually is, the more favorably it is treated. This undeserved favorable treatment of a troublesome or misbehaving group can take numerous forms, including celebrating the group, giving the group greater rights and privileges, covering up the group’s crimes and dysfunctions, attacking the group’s critics as racists, and blaming the group’s bad behavior on white racism.’

    Of course, no one is suggesting that Inspector Evans is troublesome or dysfunctional…

    • Inspector General

      Wonderfully concise explanation, JR. With militant gays, they acknowledge to a degree that male child abuse exists, but place the blame solely on priests and Conservative party members. If pushed further, a popular defence is “child abusers are NOT gay people”, and extol the phenomenon as one of power over a smaller individual and deny the sexual element. So, they will throw their own to the lions at last resort.

      • IrishNeanderthal

        I am sure, if you look at the Venn diagram, there will be some overlap. But how big it is, I do not know, and one cannot a priori trust any research on this subject.

        • Anton

          At a time when 1-3% of people identified themselves as homosexual, one study found that 25% of a group of paedophiles was homosexual in their preference for adult sexual partners. See: Blanchard, R., et al., “Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles”, in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 29, pp. 463-478; published in 2000.

          • Maalaistollo

            I seem to recall reading that the Home Office once commissioned a study on this subject, which came to a similar conclusion, ie that the proportion of paedophiles who were homosexual was, as it were, disproportionate to their representation in society as a whole. I also recall reading that a psychiatrist/psychologist was disciplined for referring to the findings of the study, so it must have been incorrect, mustn’t it, or are we now back with Galileo…..

  • Politically__Incorrect

    A few years ago I worked in a place where the boss bought a bright pink Smart Car as the company car. She then tried to rewrite everybody’s contract so that anybody who could drive was obliged to use said car instead of taxis for company business. It was amazing how many, including myself, suddenly forgot how to drive.

    • Royinsouthwest

      What about a pink Sinclair C5, if anyone remembers those? They would make less of a dent in police budgets and if the drivers were in a hurry they could always get out and run.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Is this what the police call a “pander car”?

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Brilliant sir, brilliant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Little Black Censored

    Does the gay police horse from Oxford attend these rallies?

  • Watchman

    I accept that God loves me enough for Him to send His Son to die for my sins. God hates sins but He loves me, the sinner. He must hate a lot of the things that I do but continues to love me. Jesus said that we should love our neighbour as ourselves and we must strive to do that. Jesus would have loved gay people as He loved all caught in sin and commanded them to repent. Society and the law now requires that we love the sin as much as we love the sinner and registers it a ‘”hate crime” when we condemn the sin. The law will not recognise that just as Jesus had compassion on the sinner, so can we. The law conflates hatred of the offence with hatred of the offender and in Christian doctrine they are far removed from each other.

    The pride is the worst sin as it replaces God with self. We truly do live in the days of Noah.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      “Society and the law now requires that we love the sin as much as we love the sinner” summarises rather nicely. We have reached a situation where the mere perception or feeling of unfriendliness or disapproval is an act of hate. It seems that many in the LGBT community, and probably the Police too, are testing us to see if we show approval or not.

    • David

      Well put.
      I share your conclusions.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      it is all about moral relativity…

    • Sarky

      If we do, could you please ask him how he plans to feed the carnivores?

      Many thanks

      • Watchman

        Sarky, allow me to add a little to your knowledge base. God destroyed life on earth because of wickedness
        Genesis 6:11-13 HCSB
        “Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with wickedness. God saw how corrupt the earth was, for every creature had corrupted its way on the earth. Then God said to Noah, “I have decided to put an end to every creature, for the earth is filled with wickedness because of them; therefore I am going to destroy them along with the earth.”
        In a discourse on the end of the age and pointing to when he would come again Jesus gave a number of indications of the warning signs that we should look for. Among them was this:
        Matthew 24:36-38 HCSB
        “Now concerning that day and hour no one knows-neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son -except the Father only. As the days of Noah were, so the coming of the Son of Man will be. For in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah boarded the ark.”

        Many of us believe that Jesus was referring to a time when the wickedness that was on the earth in Noah’s day would be prevalent at the end of the age and that time is fast approaching.

        • Sarky

          “Now concerning that day and hour no one knows-neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son -except the Father only”

          • Watchman

            And your point is?

          • Sarky

            Did you not say “the time is fast approaching”?

          • Watchman

            Meaning that it is imminent.

          • Sarky

            Only god knows that.

          • Watchman

            That’s right, but when we see the signs the end can come at any time, and at the moment there are plenty of signs.

          • Sarky

            Those same signs have been there throughout human history. How about stopping worrying about the end and concentrate on the now.

          • Watchman

            I think you’ll find that difficult to substantiate, Sarky. The most definite of those signs is that Israel would return to the land that God promised them and that’s only recently. There are many that have come to pass since then that have not happened before and it is the confluence of so many signs that indicates that we must expect the end. Jesus and the prophets would not have warned us to be ready unnecessarily, so we must take heed; not to do so would be negligent.

          • Anton

            No they haven’t. the return of the Jews to their ancient land, and globalisation, are both necessary for the unfulfilled prophecies to come true; both are prophesied; both looked inconceivable just 300 years ago, 1700 years after Christ; yet both are true today.

          • Anton

            That was true when Jesus spoke, 2000 years ago. I expect that his Father has by now told him when he shall return.

          • Sarky

            Funny how the disciples expected it within their lifetime.

          • Watchman

            God doesn’t have timescales as we understand them. He lives outside time. If you read your OT you will find that He rarely gave a timescale when He made a promise or warning. Do you think the disciples would have regarded it as important if they had been told something would happen in a couple of thousand years time?

          • Anton

            Because Jesus mingled his prophecies of his return with his prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem. A close reading shows that the two events could have been disentangled even before Jerusalem was ravaged by the Romans in AD70, but it probably didn’t occur to the disciples; some things Jesus spoke enigmatically on, quite deliberately. Most likely the Book of Revelation was written soon after that event to explain to confused Christians that the scope of Jesus’ words was the whole world, not just the Holy Land; and the timescale consequently rather longer.

    • A good comment but I would like to go further. Our evil goes beyond what we do to who we are. We do wrong because we are wrong. We sin because we are sinful. Our heart is evil and from it flows what we do. God, as you say, hates the sin but loves us, the sinners. Here sinner is an identity tag. It not merely describes what we do but defines who we are.

      Therefore God not only hates the sin but hates the sinner too.

      (NIV) 4 For you are not a God who is pleased with wickedness;
      with you, evil people are not welcome.
      5 The arrogant cannot stand
      in your presence.
      You hate all who do wrong;
      6 you destroy those who tell lies.
      The bloodthirsty and deceitful.

      Notice the sin and the sinner are not distinguished. Viewed as we really are God hates us. He can do no other for he hates evil and we are evil.

      (NIV) 5 The Lord examines the righteous,
      but the wicked, those who love violence,
      he hates with a passion.
      6 On the wicked he will rain
      fiery coals and burning sulfur;
      a scorching wind will be their lot.

      Yet, paradoxically, he loves us too.

      • Watchman

        Wow, John, tomes have been written about the Love of God and I think I’ve read a few of them. It becomes impossible to debate on a site like this without spilling blood! The scenario you present is a tragic vicious circle yet none the less true. I am a simple man and I believe the gospel is meant for simple men, not theologians, philosophers and mystics. Yet it is so complex that it has defied the greatest minds to understand. I invoke Isaiah 55 when I get overwhelmed with the biblical paradoxes.
        I would also like to fully enter into Hebraic thinking rather than the linear Hellenistic way into which we’ve all been inducted.

        It is on concepts like this that people like Dawkins appear so innocent because they can’t understand that anything could be beyond human reasoning.

  • Lain Iwakura

    The police don’t have funding to monitor terrorists, but they can paint cars and pay an Inspector to read twitter comments…

  • john in cheshire

    So why can’t the police reaction to mockery be classed as a hate crime? Why can’t their pride car be classed as provocative and therefore a hate crime?

    • Richard B

      Probably because right is now wrong and wrong is right in the so-called law’s sight – but not in the Lord’s sight. Earlier this year, a prophetically sensitive pastor heard the Lord instruct, “Tell the people, the middle-ground has now disappeared! It’s either going to be evil or it’s going to be Godly!…The evil will be evil still and the righteous will be righteous still. There is no middle-ground any more!…”

      Others are hearing it’s time for fulfilment of wheat and tares parable, as in Matt 13. The seeds sown in church and society by satan have ripened and are now clearly on display for all to see. Jesus promised they will be reaped first and burnt. But would those poor sinners who believe there’s no longer any sin or wrong (unless its righteousness) heed any warning before it’s too late??

      • Sarky

        No.

  • Anton

    This kind of nonsense was nicely punctured by Ezra Levant, a Canadian right-wing secular Jew and a lawyer and media commentator. Once he was asked to move on by a very politically correct policewoman while he had attempted to debate some rentamob opponents in the street. He asked why he should, and the policewoman replied that the demonstrator in question was getting very upset. Levant said to her, “So if I get more upset than him will you move him on?”

    • Politically__Incorrect

      As you say Anton, nicely punctured

    • David

      Your Canadian exposed the shallowness of whole thing.

    • Demon Teddy Bear

      Levant was always excellent on this rubbish.

  • Murti Bing

    Come Christmas, all sirens will be replaced with sleigh bells.

  • Inspector Mark Evans, not wishing to demean them, but what a fragile snowflake.

  • Inspector General

    Inspector Mark Evans can be reached on….

    101@sussex.pnn.police.uk

    So can the Chief Constable too. The rediculation of the car was achieved courtesy of their ‘diversity budget’. One joshes you not. One is rather busy today, but if time found, will seek out the police committee involved and publish details. Whether or not we have a case of misconduct in a public office is to be seen,

  • Coniston

    There are many truly homophobic people in this country (homophobic = fear of Muslims/Islam) – nearly all politicians, the social services, police, local councils, the BBC, many teachers, many lawyers, professors and lecturers, etc. etc.
    Of course when Islam takes over this country the LGBTQWERTYs will be able to live in peace and security.

  • Martin

    I’ve posted to him:

    You do realise that the rainbow reminds us that God destroyed the world
    with a flood, but will come again to judge men for their wickedness.

    However, I doubt it will cause him to grow up.

    • Anton

      Excellent reply.

      • Martin

        It’s to be noted that his threatening tweet above appears no longer in his timeline.

        • Anton

          Well spotted.

  • Albert

    I’m intrigued by the car. Aren’t the police supposed to treat everyone equally? Why do some communities get special cars and others don’t? Catholics were persecuted to the death for centuries, and within living memory in some parts of the UK faced discrimination. Can we have a Catholic Pride car, please? I would suggest one with a picture of a crucifix, the Virgin Mary, the Pope, etc. The siren can recite the rosary. If we don’t get such a car, can I report the police to the equalities commission?

    • David

      Excellent point Albert.

    • Anton

      Pride is the right word for the papacy!

      But in the spirit of your satire, what paint job would you suggest for a corresponding protestant car?

      • Albert

        Orange.

        • David

          Orange ? Not in England thank you !

          • Albert

            Orange marches happen in England.

          • Martin

            Albert

            As in William.

          • Albert

            Quite.

      • David

        Bible black ! Although many new bibles nowadays are dark red for some reason, including even my psalter.

        • Martin

          With gold edging.

      • Multi-coloured, to reflect the diversity of theologies.

        • Anton

          No diversity of theologies; all protestants are trinitarian. I think you mean a diversity of ecclesiologies.

          • If you want to be pedantic, hermeneutics and soteriology.

          • Anton

            Agreed. There is a shocking misuse of the word “theology”. With several million Muslims in the country it’s time to be accurate.

          • Theology is used in both a generic and specific sense. Generically all faith beliefs are a ‘theology’. Specifically, theology is the doctrine of God. This dual meaning has existed for some time. Consider the number of ‘systematic theologies’.

        • Hi

          Funny thing is that us Jews pray on seeing a rainbow :

          Baruch ata Ado-nai Elo-heinu melech ha’olam zocher ha’brit v’ne’eman bivrito v’kayam b’ma’amaro.

          Blessed are You, Lord our G‑d, King of the universe, who remembers the covenant, and is faithful to His covenant, and keeps His promise.

      • Cressida de Nova

        Orange paint with a photo of you displayed on the
        back of the car wearing a Protestant t shirt.
        ”there is no right
        there is no wrong
        be free
        be happy
        be protestant”

        • Anton

          You are closer than you realise. Change the wording to

          ”I am not under condemnation for my sins
          I am not under law
          be free
          be happy
          be protestant”

          and you have St Paul’s teaching. The only possible problem is what it *doesn’t* say, ie Romans 6:1-2.

    • Demon Teddy Bear

      Excellent point. Equality before the law is destroyed by special treatment for left-wing poster-boys.

    • Recently, in America, police cars “decorated” with a bible statement (“Blessed are the peace makers …” ) were deemed unconstitutional but cars with rainbow flags permissible. Crazy world.

      http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/25/its-okay-to-decorate-police-car-with-rainbow-flags-but-not-bible-verses.html

      • Albert

        Which is curious, because sex has clearly become the new religion, so sex and the state shouldn’t mix in the US.

      • Lucius

        Not “crazy.” An intended result created by a deliberate strategy from the liberal left.

    • Anton

      Where have Catholics been persecuted to the death for centuries? Shogunate Japan perhaps?

      • Albert

        I said they were persecuted to the death for centuries. This starts in 1535 and, if one includes the whole UK moves well into 20th Century.

        • Anton

          Catholics persecuted to death for their faith in the UK in the last 117 years?

          A very small proportion of the Catholic population of Ireland were killed unjustly by persons acting on behalf of the State during that time, but they were all free to abstain from the political actions that led to their deaths, raising the question of whether it was really Christ’s cause for which they died; and (2) they were all free to practise their Catholic faith elsewhere in the country. You are playing with words to make it sound as if Catholics were actively hunted and put to death as a matter of routine, are you not?

          • Albert

            Oh Anton, I do wish you’d read what I actually say. Here it is:

            Catholics were persecuted to the death for centuries

            I said nothing about their faith nor by whom they were persecuted, nor that they were actively hunted down as a matter of routine. I said simply that they were persecuted to the death. This you seem to concede – yet somehow you turn it into an argument. It is you who is playing with words by trying to make out I said or meant something I did not say or mean. Or to borrow from you:

            You are playing with words to make it sound as if I said Catholics were actively hunted and put to death as a matter of routine, are you not?

          • Anton

            Readers may decide for themselves.

          • Albert

            Looks like they already have.

          • Anton

            Jack the Impartial?

          • Albert

            I wasn’t just thinking of him.

          • 618,000 deaths in Ireland from fighting and disease during the civil war, out of a total pre-war population of c. 1.5 million, or 41 per cent of the population. And this doesn’t include those enslaved and deported to Barbados.

            Then, it was probably “just” … probably … or an accident … or ….

          • Anton

            I was talking about the 20th century, as I clearly said.

            The number who died in the wars of the 17th century were not martyrs for the cause of Christ but for the freedom to run their country as they chose. Let’s admit that before we get any further.

          • The persecution of Catholics in Northern Ireland lasted well into the 20th century. And not all of those who died – on both sides of the divide – were politically active. The long overdue and legitimate civil rights movement was high jacked by IRA terrorists in the face of Unionist resistance and terrorism.

            As for Cromwell, please don’t claim he was promoting the Christian cause. In the 17th century there was no separation between freedom and religion.

          • Albert

            And not all of those who died – on both sides of the divide – were politically active.

            This is a key point. Every Catholic, even one as English as me, will know Northern Irish Catholics who suffered persecution, even though they were not political. Anton apparently does not know this.

          • Anton

            You seem to be suffering from amnesia… the subject you brought up, very explicitly, was martyrdom, not less virulent forms of persecution. To suppose I am ignorant of those less virulent forms simply because I have restricted my part of the discussion to the subject you brought up is an unwarranted inference.

          • Albert

            No. You have brought up martyrdom -as the thread shows. It’s true that some Catholics persecuted to the death are martyrs, but not all. And the issue of martyrdom is irrelevant to the point I am making, since homosexuals can hardly be called martyrs and it is the parallel there that counts with regard to the Catholic car. I’m sorry Anton you are so keen to pick a fight that you are reading into my posts meanings which aren’t there. After all, how many Catholic martyrs have there been in the UK in the 20th Century?

          • Anton

            I might have used the M-word first but you were obviously talking about Catholics suffering for their faith not their politics.

          • Albert

            No, that’s what you’ve assumed I meant. I simply pointed out that they were persecuted to the death – I wasn’t making any distinction and if you think honestly about it, none was needed, as the comparison with homosexuality meant persecution is needed for a car, not the cause of the persecution. If you read what I have said (as opposed to what you have wanted me to say) that is my position.

            For example, I know someone who was twice burned out of his house in N.Ireland because he was a Catholic. A more gentle person would be hard to meet. He was not political at all, but I doubt the Protestants who burned his house, did so because of his view on the Immaculate Conception. He was part of a minority viciously persecuted. The precise cause is irrelevant. He deserves a car, if ever homosexuals do.

          • Anton

            The persecution of Catholics in Northern Ireland lasted well into the 20th century

            Yes it did, unfortunately. But the subject was, explicitly and clearly, martyrdom. You are free to widen the discussion, of course, but let us be clear that that is what you are doing.

            As for Cromwell, please don’t claim he was promoting the Christian cause.

            Supposing you mean in his Irish campaign, I wasn’t doing, and nothing I said can reasonably be taken to imply it. This subthread is not about that.

          • Albert

            You were, but the original claim wasn’t. You’ve distorted my comment to fit your own agenda.

          • Anton

            Trouble is, that’s what I genuinely think you’ve done. Perhaps we should stop here?

          • Albert

            Of course, you always think the worst of people (Catholics at least) – such is the love of God in you. So yes, I suggest you stop there.

          • Anton

            And also with you.

    • IrishNeanderthal

      Do please be even-handed in this matter. In France, Catherine de Medici and Louis XIV drove many Protestants out of France, those that managed to get out that is. England acquired the great mathematician De Moivre by this process.

      Henry VIII wasn’t totally even-handed either. He hanged Catholics, but he burned Protestants.

      I am not wanting to take sides, and Flannery O’Connor said that we should not rake up the quarrels of the 16th and 17th centuries.

      • Albert

        I think you’re taking this a little too seriously. I was after all, arguing for a Catholic Pride car with a siren that recites the rosary. The point is simply to say that any minority that has been put under pressure should be allowed a car. It was not to point the finger at persecutors. We’ve already had an Orange car for Protestants.

    • Cressida de Nova

      If you don’t mind Albert I think the decorative and styling arrangements of the Catholic car should be left to me. We are not doing the rosary thing:)

  • David

    Who was the Celeb?

  • Chefofsinners

    Please remember the definition of a hate crime: “any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.”
    Note the first words, ‘any criminal offence’. The actions must first be a crime, then be motivated by hate. Most of the actions discussed here are not crimes in the first place and therefore not included in this definition.

    • john in cheshire

      Isn’t this nebulous thing, a hate crime, a criminal offence?

      • Chefofsinners

        No, a hate crime must first be a crime, otherwise there’s no crime, just hate, which is only a feeling, not a crime.

        • Hate may not be a crime to human eyes but it is to divine eyes.

          • Chefofsinners

            Depends what you hate.

          • Indeed. Some hate is virtuous. We are to hate all evil.

    • Martin

      And of course, homosexuality is a behaviour, not a personal characteristic.

      • It is an inclination which is sinful and becomes personal sin when indulged in mind or action.

    • IrishNeanderthal

      Considering the Macpherson report: amid all the argument over “institutional racism”, the matter of subjective interpretation by the victim slipped in under the radar.

      • Lucius

        The concept of “micro-aggression” (policed on some college campuses) in the United States is even worse. Not only is a micro-aggression based on the subjective interpretation of the offended, but may exist even in the undisputed absence of malevolent intent on the part of the purported offender. American conservatives call “micro-aggressions” (and also “white privilege”) “racism” in the absence of actual evidence of racism.

  • Albert

    Is it homophobic for the police to imply all homosexuals are superficial and into camp, bright colours, stars and general bad taste? Isn’t it symbolism like this that causes children in playgrounds to use the word “gay” against anything naff ?

    • Terry Mushroom

      It’s certainly extremely childish and immature. I’m not surprised at the added My Little Pony. Devotees of cartoons for the under fives will recognise the same primary colours and graphics.

      • Albert

        Yes, it reminded me of the introduction to Jamie and the Magic Torch that I remember watching as a child:

        Great for pre-school children, but not for policing (or giving a good impression of people with a homosexual orientation), one would have thought.

        • The car certainly belongs in Cuckoo Land. Officer Gotcha would love it.

  • Martin

    And in other news:

    Met Police vulnerable to cyber attacks due to Windows XP use, GLA warned

    http://www.itsecurityguru.org/2017/06/28/met-police-vulnerable-cyber-attacks-due-windows-xp-use-gla-warned/

    I wonder what the situation in East Sussex is.

  • IanCad

    What with the BBC pointing out that as only a mere 1.5% of the population identify as being unstraight they are over-represented in parliament; Could we not have the same anomaly within the higher ranks of the police forces? It would be quite something to shed a few bent coppers, if indeed such is the case.

    • Watchman

      The BBC think it’s 11%, at least they acknowledge that that’s their contribution to employing their quota of the disadvantaged. It could an inflated figure as identifying as such could give an advantage in getting a job at the Beeb.

      • Royinsouthwest

        What is a decimal place, more of less, between friends?

  • Inspector General

    If anyone is contacting Evans, let him know that we on Cranmer believe he can help us with our enquires.

    Followed his tweet history earlier on. The fellow is really interested in matters LGBT. Very interested. It would be truly astonishing if he was using his position to further a personal cause, and this Inspector here wants assurance from his superiors that that is not the case!

    • Martin

      You may also be interested in some of the others he communicates with. There are some very strange police officers about.

      and enquiries. 😉

  • John

    What next? Police cars self-identifying as motor cycles?

    • Anton

      PCSOs self-identifying as policemen.

      • Inspector General

        PCSOs are excellent types! They really should be rewarded by being reclassified as ‘civic police’. One understands to enter the regular force in Gloucestershire (‘criminal police’ they should be renamed as) you have to do a stint as a PCSO.

        • Anton

          Why not go up to one and warn him (or her) that it is a criminal offence to impersonate a police officer?

          • Martin

            Anton

            You might want to do that to the non PCSOs, if you can find one.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Better still, say it to a chief constable. Do we have any chief constables in Britain who are not careerists hoping to get on by parroting PC claptrap?

        • Didn’t Blunket’s PCSOs come about because Labour government couldn’t afford to properly train new police officers to the required standard.

          • Inspector General

            Well, Marie, rather thought it was the inevitable outcome of suppressing Christianity in state schools and the appalling unchristian behaviour resulting….

  • Wonder what would have happened if the garage used to deface this police vehicle had refused on principle.

  • “As long as they don’t confuse events by turning up to Gay Pride in the #sharia car and Islamist festivals in a #pride car, all will be well.”

    Here we go – problem solved:

    محمد مثلي الجنس

  • Hi

    As a lesbian I really don’t give a toss about this virtue signalling . The police are there to defend us ALL against criminals and terrorists. I’d rather the money being spent on that car spray paint etc being directed toward real thugs and stuff. I wonder if this is why our synagogues are virtual fortresses because we’re left to defend ourselves .

    • And ‘Comment of the Month’ goes to…
      Bless you, Hannah.

    • IrishNeanderthal

      Hannah,

      Because you’re here, and the article below appeared earlier today, may I draw it to everybody’s attention:

      When ISIS Began Genocide And Slavery, ‘Jewish Schindler’ Acted

      • Politically__Incorrect

        A remarkable and noteworthy story.

    • Chefofsinners

      As a heterosexual, I don’t give a toss either.

      • One hopes not.

        • Chefofsinners

          Actually, today I am self defining as a muffin / crumpet intersex demi-girl of no fixed orientation. I am offended by this blatant favouring of those with sexuality based identities. I demand that a squad car be coated in bread-based breakfast items immediately.

          • Maalaistollo

            Crumbs!

          • Just so long as you’re not a tosser. Unless pancakes are involved.

    • Busy Mum

      Yes – maybe you could make enquiries at your local police station (when it’s open) about getting a police car decorated with the Star of David?

  • Maalaistollo

    At least the police in Bristol are sparing no efforts in cracking down on real criminals. The Barnabas Fund has just issued this:

    STOP PRESS – UK CROWN COURT TO RETRY STREET PREACHERS CONVICTED OF RELIGIOUS HARASSMENT BY MAGISTRATES
    Two Christian street preachers convicted of religiously aggravated harassment at Bristol magistrates in February are taking their case to Bristol Crown Court between 28-30 June. During the first trial in February, the Crown Prosecution Service’s lawyer claimed that, in modern Britain, reading certain passages from the King James Bible in public “must be considered to be abusive and is a criminal matter”.
    Ask that the lawyers defending the two believers will have a voice of wisdom (Proverbs 1:20) as they present their case in court. Pray that the men’s conviction, which effectively criminalises the public reading of Scripture, will be overturned and that the court will uphold the United Kingdom’s heritage of religious freedom.

    • Inspector General

      That has to be the ‘Comment of the Month’, no less!

    • wisestreligion

      Maybe a mass scripture reading in public is called for. Challenge the government and the police to decide if they really want to try to bring to an end two thousand years of free Christian expression.

      • Maalaistollo

        I’m not sure that we’ve had ‘two thousand years of free Christian expression.’ We’ve hardly had as much as 200. Nevertheless, the Authorised Version has been authorised for public reading in churches since the early 17th century. Unlike the legal status of the Book of Common Prayer, which Enoch Powell is (apparently incorrectly) reported to have stated is ‘a schedule to an Act of Parliament’ there appears to be no surviving evidence of the authorisation which gave the AV its common description, so there may be little mileage in promoting a public reading of it in the hope of enjoying immunity from prosecution on the assumption that such reading is protected, still less enjoined by law. The real test will come when the police intervene to prohibit its reading inside churches.

        • Anton

          And specifically inside Anglican churches, which by law are public places unlike other denominations. I predict that the CoE will quietly drop passages like Leviticus 18 and 20 from its schedule of Bible reading in its services.

      • Anton

        Try reading (out loud) the Bible in English before Tyndale?

  • Gay Pride’ parade: Little girl watches nearly-nude man dance

    A shocking video has surfaced showing a little girl waving a rainbow flag in front of a nearly nude male dancer during a “gay pride” celebration.

    She appears to be all alone on the crowded sidewalk as she watches the man gyrate and provocatively tug at his crotch …

    During the short video, 40 or so people stroll by and walk around her as if she were nothing more than an inanimate object, as if it were utterly unextraordinary – mundane – to witness the destruction of innocence in a child. The passersby barely even notice her.

    But the guys taking the video do notice her, and as the video proceeds, they laugh at her and make wisecracks:

    I wanna be like that when I grow up …

    Ha ha ha ha ha …

    Look, she’s waving her little flag.

    Ha ha ha ha ha …

    Where is mom and dad?

    O my gawd.

    That is too precious.

    Maybe it’s her dad dancing?

    O my Lord.

    That is kinda scary, though.

    Ha ha ha ha ha …

    These adult males are not expressing concern for the little girl. There appears to be no innate instinct to protect her – only a misogynistic impulse to laugh at this poor kid surrounded by mostly zombie-like gay revelers, stuck watching the near-naked guy dance, strut and pose. Even when one of them asks, “Where is mom and dad?” it’s said with a snarky tone, feigning morality …

    If you dare, you can watch the video here.

    The dominant characteristic of the adults in this little girl’s world that afternoon was coarseness.

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/shocking-video-of-gay-pride-parade-little-girl-watches-nearly-nude-man-danc

    • Inspector General

      One can assure himself that Inspector Evans would take a very dim view of that kind of thing happening on his patch. Won’t he? Do say…

      • The video has now been removed by YouTube for: “violating YouTube’s Community Guidelines”. Strange, given the pornography they routinely allow.

        It couldn’t be because it exposes the depravity of Gay Pride and its worshippers … could it?

        • Inspector General

          One has been musing what law would be broken in this country. LGBT pressure has successfully removed much protection. “Gross indecency in a public place” perhaps. You really have to be a barrack room lawyer to know these days. Perhaps Inspector Evans can inform us on which misdemeanour he would apply in this case…

          • Lucius

            Indecent exposure (public display of one’s private parts) is a misdemeanor in many states in the United States and a felony if done in front of a child. But I suspect such laws would not be enforced against such displays at a Pride Parade. One of the many benefits of “gay privilege” I suppose.

          • Radio Canada has offered this advice to parents attending Gay Pride events with children:

            1. Be open-minded.
            Your kids will probably see boobs and penises. There will bodies of all shapes, sizes and in all states of undress. For parents like Ian Duncan, dad to 3-year-old Carson, this is all part of the appeal. “We’re not body shamers,” he says. “It all feeds into my son’s emotional intelligence and sexual development. And it’s never too early to think about that.” Consider the experience as a great opportunity for some interesting discussion. Explain what you’re seeing, and be ready for questions.

            http://www.cbc.ca/parents/learning/view/7-tips-for-having-happy-pride-with-kids

            Unbelievable!

          • Lucius

            This relates to my comment further above. This is nothing less than a concerted effort to both normalize and moralize this type of behavior while at the same time casting any disagreement therewith as base bigotry punishable both legally and through social contempt.

          • It’s sexualising children. The penises of Gay Pride revellers are supposed to be discussion opportunities for little children who need to be sexually developed and open-minded. Nothing less than corruption.

          • Lucius

            That is part of the fall-out certainly. But I think the broader social phenomena, again, is to moralize and normalize this behavior. That’s why the article you cited is not only cast by the Canadian government as some type of learning experience, but it is also peppered with moral innuendo (e.g., “We’re not body shamers”) and a general atmospheric of social approval.

          • We’re not in disagreement.

          • Linus

            If parents don’t want their children to see such things, they have every right to keep them at home.

            Parents who do let their children attend Pride events clearly believe that seeing nudity (or in this case, a state of undress no worse than you might see on any beach) will not harm them.

            This is their right as parents.

            If Christian parents have the right to indoctrinate their children into their belief system by wantonly exposing them to sexual repression and the objectification of the human body as something shameful to be covered, non-Christian parents can teach their children that sex is a normal and natural part of life that doesn’t need to be hidden away.

            What I especially like about stories like this is how Christians foam at the mouth whenever sex is mentioned. The stress this must put you under in today’s permissive society must be phenomenal.

            Careful though. Stress kills.

          • You think it okay for children to be exposed to men and women gyrating around in a lascivious manner and exposing their sex organs? Hardly the same as simple nudity. If so, you are corrupt. It’s clear you have no understanding of morality or of children.

          • IanCad

            Thanks for the link Jack. Unbelievable it is, but the comments give hope. The perverts and their acolytes are approaching their zenith.

          • Albert

            For parents like Ian Duncan, dad to 3-year-old Carson, this is all part of the appeal. “We’re not body shamers,” he says. “It all feeds into my son’s emotional intelligence and sexual development. And it’s never too early to think about that.”

            …apart from the fact that it sexualises a child’s understanding of the human body, causing him to see others and himself as sexual objects, way too early.

            The curious thing of our society is that it is (rightly) horrified by sexual abuse of children (so a parent who shows his child pornography harms him), but a parent who takes him to a “pride” march to see penises and boobs is simply feeding his son’s emotional intelligence. This kind of inconsistency is what happens when rationality gives way to emotional stupid liberalism.

          • Busy Mum

            It is quite believable if you take the time to read school RSE policies. Ian Duncan is simply regurgitating what his school would have told him is the rationale behind the sex education program. And the majority of parents simply swallow it.

    • Murti Bing

      Have you not seen the picture of a previous ‘pride’ march that showed several men, dressed in latex and leather, crawling along the street pretending to be dogs? And behind them, a group of children, again waving their little rainbow flags.

      The whole thing is turning into a sick porn fest.

      • Malcolm Smith

        All this reminds me of the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in Sydney. Lots of people come up to watch it, but when asked about their attitudes, it appears they are amused at what they consider a freak show.

  • Nicer police cars, faster response times and better-looking drivers mean they’re not just “the” emergency services – they’re “your” emergency services.

    (Slightly modified from The IT Crowd)

    • Maalaistollo

      In the interests of developing uniformity in cross-border policing practices, they will presumably also respond to ‘sexual emergencies.’

  • not a machine

    The definition of hate crime your grace phrases is interesting and a very thought provoking article around modernity and possibly farce and perfection ,I am still smiling at the thought of the pro sharia law,pimp my ride notion , with the road show and video showing hooded man amputating a limb , with the thud/stamp graphics …. theft…… sorted .care of x county police force.
    I sometimes wonder in the case of internet run your life increase ,if we control it or it controls us and if those making money out of it controlling us , really do see the need for self managed freedom and responsibility as the er third way isn’t really working out as they made the intelligent zealots think it would.

  • HedgehogFive

    Nowadays people use sexual words for swearing, rather than religious oaths.

    So maybe the reason gay priders seem to get as annoyed a Muslims (though not, as yet, anywhere near as violent) is that they regard people who do not endorse their take on things as having blasphemed their sexuality.

    • Lucius

      The gay activist movement (admittedly this does not include all homosexuals) from its inception was fighting for moral supremacy. Legal equality was a mere smoke screen meant to distract from the true agenda.

      • Anton

        Except where the attitude is zero tolerance it appears that this movement is determined to dominate.

        • David

          Yes because of humanity’s nature, pluralism is a fragile and rare plant. Classical liberalism, providing a true tolerance of those unlike yourself, is an ideal that few are capable of maintaining it seems.

          • The philosophical problem with classical liberalism is its failure to define “harm” and the “greatest good”. Its rejection of God, natural law and objective moral standards as ways to live according to God’s design, and intended for the good of all, renders these concepts meaningless and essentially means who ever is in power gets to enforce what they want.

    • David

      An interesting suggestion but I’d suggest that it is not that subtle. Most same sex attracted people simply get with their lives peacefully. But some, the campaigning minority, have such fragile egos that they cannot coexist with those who disagree with them, hence their deep intolerance of any contrary opinions. So called liberalism has in fact ushered in a deep illiberalism, leaving few classical liberals in place.

  • I’m sorry but if I had to call the police out and they turned up in that I couldn’t take them seriously. It looks like the stripper-gram mobile on its way to a party.

    • Chefofsinners

      My name is PC Lovelength and you have been a very naughty girl…

      • In best Barbara Windsor Carry On voice:
        Oh! but officer Lovelength, I haven’t done anything wrong. Giggles

  • David

    Much of the discussion raised on this site points to the fact that humans encounter enormous difficulties in tolerating significant difference, which is the goal of true, classical liberalism. Now although it is exceedingly difficult to imagine it, from our present vantage point, I do believe that society could flip, within say a decade, away form its present socially destructive trajectory towards a new puritanism.

    • IanCad

      I agree David – it could flip – but I’m not so sure it would be slow.
      People are a fickle beast; generally lazy, selfish and tribal; spurred to action by rage – they can turn on a dime.

  • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

    The meaning of toleration has changed dramatically. Back in the 17th and 18th centuries, toleration meant accepting, to a limited extent, something which one found distasteful or abhorrent (i.e. Nonconformity). Now we have a new form of toleration which is more Orwellian, for it requires us to love and celebrate that which we find distasteful or abhorrent, at the risk of a backlash which is in no way tolerant. Toleration is now the club with which we browbeat anyone of a traditional cultural inclination. We are moving from failed multiculturalism to multi-tribalism.

    • Anton

      I can’t stop this in the nation but it will not happen in my house.

      • Maalaistollo

        Try telling that to Social Services.

        • Anton

          Ah, the SS.

        • Royinsouthwest

          Isn’t it strange that despite their powers the social services in places like Rotherham always seem helpless when it comes to protecting underage white girls from Muslims of Pakistani origin? Although some of the abusers in Rotherham and other towns have been put on trial, found guilty and imprisoned nobody who facilitated the crimes by turning a blind eye in the interests of “community relations” has been punished.

          Why haven’t the facilitators in local government, the social services, police etc. been put on trial themselves? At the very least they should be sacked.

          • David

            That’s because the “protection” offered by all arms of the state seems to only work well in one direction – protecting and promoting everything anti-western and anti-British. Any protection acting in the opposite direction is only afforded late, in extreme and undeniable circumstances and very grudgingly, e.g. Rotherham.

          • Maalaistollo

            Look at http://christiansineducation.co.uk/persistent-alarm-bells-for-home-educators/ for a warning as to what may be on its way.

      • Linus

        It may happen in your house if one of your children turns out to be gay. Or maybe your wife is having a torrid affair with another woman behind your back. Perhaps even in front of your eyes: I mean, given the tent-like sacks and headcoverings browbeaten fundamentalist Christian wives tend to wear, all manner of things could be going on underneath them and you’d never know.

        Whatever may or may not happen however, one thing is sure: no man can hold back the tide on his own. The world will obtrude into your life no matter what you do to try and stop it. The fact that you think you can means you’ve already set yourself up for a fall that will be painfully hard when it comes.

        Which it will.

        • Anton

          I thought you didn’t believe in prophecy?

          • Linus

            There you go again with your imaginary Christian concepts.

            There’s no such thing as “prophecy”. We have no ability to see what hasn’t already happened. All we can do is look at how similar events have played out in the past and make an educated guess about how things will play out in the future.

            There’s nothing inevitable about my predictions. However in this case, given how Christian paternal tyranny usually turns out, it’s a pretty safe bet to predict that your attempt to control your family’s behaviour will end in tears. Most likely yours.

            Time will tell.

          • Chefofsinners

            There you go again imagining our concepts are imaginary…

            Eternity will tell.

    • Linus

      Who says you have to love and celebrate anyone or anything?

      You’re free to hold whatever opinion you like.

      Your problem is that you’re so used to seeing your opinion reflected in public policy that the moment any other is voiced, you cry persecution and tyranny. If the state and those who work for it show any support for anything you don’t like, in your eyes it’s a crime.

      What better proof could there be of your unshakeable belief that you are the centre of the world and anyone who disagrees with you has no right to be seen or heard?

      Keep your vile and hateful opinions. Nobody can force you to change them. But the days when you could pretend they were also the values of society as a whole and of the state that regulates it are long gone.

      I’d advise you to deal with your loss if I thought you were able to. But you’ll go to your grave consumed by bitterness and rage at a society that no longer listens to your dictates. And that’s nobody’s problem but yours – and perhaps the unfortunates who have the bad lack to encounter you as you take your time hobbling to your unlamented tomb. May they assign pity where it’s due, tempered of course with a good dose of common sense and much shrugging of shoulders. After all, you have no-one to blame for your predicament but yourself. Nobody ever appointed you moral guardian of the world. That’s a role you’ve taken on yourself.

      • Anton

        Mirror time again!

        • Linus

          In my looking glass I see a variety of opinions reflected, most of which I don’t agree with, but all of which exist and must be taken account of whether I like them or not.

          Modern society allows for that. The society advocated by the woman (if she is a woman) who calls herself Proudie would suppress every point of view but her own.

          We are as unlike as it is possible to be, which is a fact I would happily thank your god for if he existed to be thanked.

          • The point you’re missing is that Mrs P. would tolerate perversity. You and your ilk insist on celebrating it.

          • Linus

            Oh dear, how stupid of me. I forgot the world revolves around you and that what you define as perverse must be objectively so.

            Only it isn’t. Not anywhere outside the narrow confines of that shriveled organ in which the crazed remnant of your mind lurks.

            Public policy cannot be based on Christian morality (as interpreted by you, of course – or anyone else for that matter) because Christianity is only one of a myriad number of competing and mutually exclusive belief systems. Public policy must take all of society into account, not just a self-proclaimed elite.

            The perversity of your self-involved narcissism can be tolerated, and indeed is tolerated, up to the point where you attempt to impose it on others. When you’re stopped from doing this, you shriek about persecution and intolerance.

            Shriek away. The sound of it defines your image as constantly carping, bitter and angry purveyors of extremist recrimination.

          • You think it okay to expose children as young as 3 years old to obscene displays of sex acts? Really?

          • Chefofsinners

            The thing is, one minority is singled out to be celebrated. Where is the squad car with scenes from Jesus’ life painted on the side? Or Mohammed’s? Oops, no, I mean geometric patterns. Please don’t jihad me. But there are many other protected characteristics, which encompass far more people than the small minority defined by sexual identity. Surely, somewhere, there should be a car celebrating each of the nine protected characteristics? Or even just one with a picture of a wrinkly black pregnant disabled Sikh woman?

        • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

          He’s wasting his time, he is the only contributor I’ve blocked …I just can’t be arsed…

          • Maalaistollo

            Is that an expression the use of which is befitting to a lady?

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            The Archdeacon uses it all the time…I thought it appropriate considering the subject…

          • Not a good term to use in respect of interactions with Linus.

    • David

      Your point regarding the change in the meaning of the word “toleration”, is a good one. Regarding political creeds, it strikes me forcibly that classical liberalism, which has a certain nobility I’d muse, never in fact existed, contemporary so called liberalism being so deeply illiberal, which brings us back to your point about the meaning of “toleration” having been changed. The ranter just below laughingly fails to grasp that point.

      Your phrase “multi-tribalism” is also useful and accurate. This is why the law is not being applied uniformly across all “tribes”, different expectations being applied to different groups. This is of course deeply patronising, but the progressives are blind to their own hypocrisy, probably because it suits them.

  • michaelkx

    Does it not say some were that in the time of the end, good would be called bad, and bad would be called good? I think Mrs Proudie has hit the mark.

  • Anton

    Hey mate, how about getting out of that flash car and nicking a few burglars and vandals?

    • IanCad

      Need a risk assessment first.

    • David Harkness

      See this site for a video of Sussex’ finest in action – it doesn’t take a mob!

      https://bluelivesmatter.blue/bodycam-video-sussex-police/

      • Anton

        Well found. Would you describe the contents of the video briefly or shall I?

        • David Harkness

          Well , there’s this dusky chap with a central Asian name. Three police officers corner him, one of the police officers is a woman, they have between them at least one Taser, one police dog and allegedly one policeman is armed.

          The dusky fellow comes out swinging an old hammer, and after a failed Taser attempt, the two male officers leg it leaving the female officer to handle the situation alone. Her screams are heard on the video. Eventually the two male officers return and the situation is brought under control.

          This episode pre dates the Gay friendly paint job on the police car. Maybe Sussex police should save the cost of the paint job, and spend it on means of more effective policing.

          • Chefofsinners

            If Sussex and its police force should last a thousand years, men will still say ‘this was their finest hour’.

          • Anton

            It won’t last a thousand years.

  • Royinsouthwest

    If it is a hate crime to say that a police horse is gay, would it also be a hate crime to say to police officers getting out of a car like the one in the photo “your car looks so gay!”? If so, would the fact that it was deliberately painted to look gay be an acceptable defence?

    • Dreadnaught

      I think it all pivots around the intended use of the word ‘gay’. ‘Gay’ must only be used now in a positive context and not as a demeaning expression whether it applies to an individual or inanimate object.
      It’s apparently acceptable in some circles now for dark skinned people to refer to another of their number as a ‘Nigger’ but not so for anyone else: to refer to women as ‘bitches’ or ‘hoes’ [whores]. Call a homosexual by the names their own kind use to describe themselves and in all likelyhood you would be accused of homophobia and insulting them. Even the tone of voice or inflection can get you your collar felt these days; You dig me daddyo?

      • Anton

        Yes, they’ve been calling the ‘academic’ investigation of the history, subculture and writings of their movement “Queer Studies” for some time, at least in the USA.

      • You’re so Gay,
        You probably think this car is about you,
        Don’t you,
        Don’t you.

        How fabulous ….

  • Every state must, and inevitably will, have a theological creed. For a time, particularly during times of change in that creed, it may formally deny it, and pretend otherwise. But when it feels that the new creed is safely established, it will be enforced. This is what you now see. We have new gods, and like all gods, the new gods do not enjoy being blasphemed. Their priests, like the Inspector in this post, will see to it that blasphemy is punished, one way or the other.

    Tolerance has its limits. Questioning the core teachings of the new religion – that the right to sexual self-determination is absolute – is beyond those limits. Hold theological disputes on minor questions, if you like – but no society will, in the long term, allow open, direct attacks on its gods.

    The only real way to deal with this is mass blasphemy. Blasphemy laws only work whilst the numbers of blasphemers are sufficiently low to allow their enforcement. Hence, being polite and keeping your head down and hoping that all the trouble stops 6 inches in front of our front doors – the path that followers of the old theological creed have been following thus far – will continue to be our fast track to cultural suicide.

    • David

      Spot on !
      Ardent secularists justify and spread their beliefs, claiming that they follow “reason” and are neutral. But in fact due to a lack of self-awareness, they are blind to the process that they are involved in, which is the creation of a new faith based upon self-worship and the perceived radical reinvention of themselves, often contrary to reason.

    • Humanae Vitae, the Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI, in July 1968, forbidding Catholics to use artificial methods of birth control, foretold this.

      In response to the Lambeth Conference permitting contraception, the London Times of June 30, 1930, predicted that this would change the “social and moral life” of humanity. This was done by the Conference’s Resolution 15 which allowed the use of contraception in marriage. William Carey, Bishop of Bloemfontein, withdrew from the Conference in protest and even sent a petition to the King on the subject.

      • Anton

        Nothing wrong with barrier contraception within marriage. Plenty wrong with nonmarital sex regardless of contraception.

        • Not worked out like that, has it? Separate sex from procreation outside or inside of marriage, and you set mankind off down a dark road.

          Have you read Humanae Vitae yet?

          • Anton

            Give people guns and they can hunt for food better and control vermin better… but if they sinfully wish to hurt people then that is easier too. A close analogy. So the lesson is not don’t use contraceptives, but don’t sin. Don’t forget that marital contraception is not a sin according to the written laws of Moses. If the Pope reckons he knows better than God and wants to add to the law, more fool those who listen.

            Yes, I read Humanae Vitae Long ago, and also John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.

          • Hardly an analogy at all. What are guns designed for? Their intended use is to defend and to kill animals and men. Used for illegitimate purposes they are sinful.

            “Don’t forget that marital contraception is not a sin according to the written laws of Moses.”
            Silence is not permission. Because there’s no “thou shalt not” doesn’t mean “thou canst”. Genesis makes clear the intended purpose of sex. Companionship, bonding and procreation.

          • Anton

            How stupid you conveniently appear when I present an analogy! But you are not that stupid.

            Silence is permission in a legal code.

            Yes, those are the purposes of sex. But not every act of sex must fulfill all three or there would be a prohibition on sex during pregnancy.

          • “Silence is permission in a legal code.”
            Really? So FGM is acceptable before God because the Law of Moses is silent on this? What nonsense. God’s Law is not a “legal code”.
            Both Genesis and Jesus were clear about marriage and sex. And because one’s body is incapable of conceiving or impregnating doesn’t render sex sinful. Actively seeking to prevent conception by artificial means is what constitutes an offence against God.

          • Anton

            FGM is violence against a person. The Law of Moses was the legal code of ancient Israel, as upheld by Jesus Christ; didn’t they teach you that?

            “Actively seeking to prevent conception by artificial means is what constitutes an offence against God.”

            Thus saith the Pope!

          • Well yes, if God’s law does not forbid something (i.e. is silent about forbidding it), then it is not forbidden. Clearly you believe that FGM is a sin (as do I). But on what grounds? Because you (unlike me) clearly appear to believe that God’s law says nothing to forbid it. You claim to know that it’s a sin, but that God’s law (according to you) does not say so. You’ve tied yourself up in a knot there.

            In your second paragraph, you again simply repeat yourself. You base an absolute, universal and specific prohibition upon a broad description of the nature of marriage, with no supporting proof that A must entail B.

          • Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race – i.e. “natural law.” The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

            But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and harmful when it is used in a way that deliberately ad actively excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

            The Bible mentions one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death. But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law.

            Contraception was so far outside the biblical mind-set and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.

            Pope Paul VI predicted grave consequences that would arise from the widespread use of contraception:
            “Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.”

          • It’s a poor show when you copy and paste – without attribution – someone else’s argument (https://www.catholic.com/tract/birth-control).

            Again, you (or rather, they) argue from a general principle to an absolute and universal. Anton has already pointed out that Rome permits intercourse when there’s no possibility of conception (e.g. when the woman is already pregnant, or is infertile). For this, you resort to the distinction that the impossibility must be natural, not unnatural. But that distinction is extra-biblical. “Natural law” describes general principles, not the last jot and tittle of the detail. You cannot establish a case from Scripture that, for example, a married couple must abstain instead of using a condom whilst the wife recovers from a serious illness during which a pregnancy could seriously endanger her health. Would you care to try?

            You twist the case of Onan, which does not say that he did what he did “so as not to have offspring”, but “so as not to give offspring to his brother”. The text straightforwardly says that Onan’s sin was in regard of not wishing his brother to have an inheritance, not that the method he used to achieve that outcome was necessarily and universally sinful regardless of the outcome aimed at. If that is your best effort from Scripture, then you have conceded that your case is bad. Remember: you’re not being asked to establish that there has ever, anywhere, been a case involving contraception that was sinful. You’re trying to defend your assertion that artificial contraception is universally sinful.

            It’s unnatural to kill somebody, because this ends life. Therefore, capital punishment is wrong. See what I did there? General to particular+universal. I can also find people in the Bible who killed, and were condemned, just like you mention Onan. Do you understand that that argument is very weak?

          • Whatever his motivation, Onan used an unnatural method to avoid conception and to achieve it and was killed as a result. As pointed out, the punishment for denying his brother’s wife a child was not death.

            The bible does not say that all killing is wrong – quite the reverse. The term it uses for “kill” is quite particular and is the unlawful taking of a human life.

          • That’s pure equivocation. I’ve already pointed out that the text does not say that he was killed because of choosing one means rather than another (e.g. abstention), but because of the ends that the means were employed for. The text does not criticise Onan for preferinging withdrawal to abstention – that’s a distinction imported into the text purely from Roman dogma. Abstention would have been equally evil, because the law was clear that he had a duty to his brother.

            Your second paragraph misses the point of the analogy entirely (it is curious that you make such hair-splitting distinctions in defending your position on one hand, but so routinely misunderstand any distinctions that I or Anton make). The rest of the Bible is necessary to unfold where the boundaries of lawful and unlawful killing are. That data is not inherent in the word itself. Similarly, the original explanation of the purposes of God making man and woman does not inherently contain a full explanation of all the ins and outs of lawful and unlawful uses of contraception, as you have claimed.

          • The text is clear that he was killed by God because he used an unnatural method to avoid conception – not because of his motives. And the interpretation was given long before the Catholic Church formally defined contraception as intrinsically sinful and was universally accepted by all Christians prior to the Lambeth Conference in 1930. You using the same revisionist methods as the homosexualists when they reinterpret scripture.

          • Anton

            The normal denial of a baby to your bereaved sister-in-law was by refusal to have sex with her. In Onan’s case he used for for his own sexual gratification and then denied her the baby. That is a far worse thing to do, and God showed His displeasure.

          • That’s not the interpretation held by all Christians for 2000 years.

          • Anton

            That’s not an argument.

          • It most certainly is if you believe in Tradition, the use of reason in interpreting scripture and in the indefectibility of the Apostolic Church.

          • Anton

            Then give their supposedly indefectible arguments.

          • Anton

            Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race – i.e. “natural law.” The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God

            Here already at the start you are astray. The purpose of sex is bonding within the marital relationship. That is explicit in Genesis 2:24, “he will bond to his wife; they become one flesh.” (‘Bond’ is the best translation of DABAQ.) That is why the human female remains sexually receptive when infertile. That is why there is no moral difference between sex when the wife is infertile and barrier contraception otherwise. Children are a normal consequence of a married couple’s desire.

            But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and harmful when it is used in a way that deliberately ad actively excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation.

            You know, you occasionally pay lip service to bonding as part of the reason for sex but pretty quickly you show what you really believe. Your assertion that it is harmful is nonsense. It can be for lust or for loving sharing just as much when contraception is used as when the woman is infertile.

            Here’s a direct question for you. Why does Rome regard it as OK for a couple to marry when the woman is past childbearing age? There is no room for any “open to conception” waffle in this case, is there?

          • Jack’s already answered that. The difference is between what is natural and what is a deliberate attempt to frustrate the intended purpose of sex – procreation.

          • It’s curious that, whilst making such fine distinctions yourself, you have such difficulty in processing any distinctions that anybody else introduces or asks you to comment on.

            For example, I asked you to comment on the case of a case where a married couple, during a temporary time when the wife has a health condition during which pregnancy could seriously endanger her health, use a condom. Are you able to distinguish this case from a couple who selfishly make a life-long decision that they would hate the inconvenience and hard work of children and prefer their careers? Or it’s all just the same to you, so that you can uphold your absolutist position?

          • Are you a moral proportionalist? There is a distinction, of course, but they would both be objectively wrong. An act that is intrinsically wrong is always sinful – whatever the intended purpose. An end does cannot justify illicit means.

          • Ah, now that you’ve actually stooped to answer and not just deal in generalities, we can make progress in showing how incoherent your position is.

            You argue from a *general purpose* of marriage (procreation) to a universal prohibition. Now, let’s suppose that this couple already had 8 children. But because they, unfortunately, believe that all contraception is always wrong, they make love, and the wife’s condition, exarcerbated by the additional burden on her health of a pregnancy, results in her death. Whereas, if they’d used barrier contraception, they may, a few months later, have had a successful pregnancy. And another 6 afterwards, for good measure.

            So, in this example, the means of contraception would actually have led to the general purpose being more abundantly satisfied (and the children end up having a mother). Whereas not using that means, undermined it.

            In case you misunderstand the point of this illustration: it’s to illustrate that general principles which are not themselves moral imperatives cannot be used to argue universal moral imperatives, irrespective of context in which they are being applied.

          • So you are a moral proportionalist. Would you justify abortion in the same way too? It’s not for us to weigh the proportion of good and evil in actions. As Jack said: the end, as commendable as it might be, does not justify an intrinsically immoral means. That’s what objective, moral absolutes are all about.

            An immoral act cannot be justified even if the overall good or evil involved in doing the action compares favourably with the overall good or evil which the available alternatives would bring about. It’s this kind of thinking that has opened the door to a flood of evils.

          • Anton

            But it is not the only intended purpose of sex, as Genesis 2:24 makes clear. It could be an act of bonding. At this point you have to ask whether God forbids contraception, and in ancient Israel’s code of law starting at Sinai and running to Deuteronomy he doesn’t. He forbids fornication.

          • Food has two components, if we think about it: There is both a biological and an emotional aspect to any food we eat. Food is eaten with friends. It’s often pleasurable to consume. It’s also a necessity for life. Ancient Rome, however, was known for its pleasurable excesses. It was not unheard of for party guests to vomit their food up after dinner, and return for more food later. Cicero in his work Pro Rege Deiotaro noted Julius Caesar himself would take emetic drugs for the expressed purpose of making himself vomit after dinner. For ancient Roman partygoers, filling up on good food wasn’t considered a bad thing at all. And, if you found yourself too full, a guest just emptied the contents of their stomach, and then could return to the party able to consume more delectables.

            Today, when someone tries to lose weight by vomiting the food they eat, we say they have an eating disorder. Just so, when the ancient Romans sought to separate the pleasure of eating from its biological purpose, we see it as disordered. Or we just call it gross. Take your pick.

            If this sounds odd to bring up in an article allegedly about contraception, consider this: Artificial contraception of any sort, physical, chemical or behavioral, does with our sexuality exactly what the Romans did with food. There are two aspects to human sexuality as well: unitive and pro-creative. Sexual activity done right is unitive, bonding two people through pleasurable activity. There is also a biological purpose to sex, which (hopefully) any seventh-grader knows is the creation of children. Contraception separates the unitive from the pro-creative, insisting on having the pleasure of sex while cutting off its biological purposes.

            Why do we care? Because separating the emotional from the physical leads to disorders, with sexuality as much as food …

            Thus, where separating the pleasure of eating from the biological purpose of eating leads to eating disorders, the separation of the pleasure of sexuality from the biological purpose of sex leads to sexual disorders, or perversions. Does this mean every couple that uses contraception will become perverts? Not necessarily. However, the dangers to our culture of a contraceptive mentality are undeniable for one who looks honestly at our cultural history.

          • Anton

            God himself separates the unitive from the procreative in having the human female sexually receptive when infertile. That’s not true of mammals having similar reproductive physiology and is because sex is for marital bonding as much too.

          • So then use what God has given us without interfering with His design.

          • Anton

            We frustrate the workings of nature when we build a dam across a river, yet you don’t object. We interfere with nature all the time. To make your case you need to find a *moral* objection to an act of contracepted marital intercourse. But whatever you insist is morally wrong with a marital act of contracepted intercourse, would be morally wrong with an act of intercourse when the wife is post-menopausal or pregnant. And those acts aren’t morally wrong. Ergo, neither is the contracepted one.

          • Jack has already provided the moral argument, based on scripture, nature law and constant Christian teaching. He’s already addressed the points about sex when the women is non-fertile.

          • Stephen Raftery

            Another point to consider is how Jesus said that whoever welcomes a small child welcomes Him.
            By using contraception, a couple essentially do NOT welcome the child who would have been conceived, and it would seem that Jesus is suggesting that they are unwilling to welcome Christ

          • The point is that you cannot argue from the broad intended purpose to a specific and universal prohibition that is nowhere hinted at. *That* is very much an abuse of the silence.

          • Nowhere hinted at? Scripture is clear about the purpose of sex between a permanently married man and woman. 2000 years of constant Church teaching on this, the use of reason and now experience, tells you the rest.

          • Was there something in what I said that you did not understand? It’s not the broad intended purpose that need justifying, but the inference to the specific, universal prohibition.

            By the way, what does Scripture, and 2000 years of experience, tell us expect from the doctrine of priestly celibacy? And does this have any relationship to the continual stream of Roman Catholic abuse scandals, and the levels of homosexuality among the Roman Catholic clergy?

          • No the argument boils down to: man by attempting to frustrate God’s intention for us not only commits individual sin but also brings social chaos. God was quite specific about the primary purpose of sex.
            As for celibacy, that’s a non sequitur. Protestant churches have their fair share of sexual abuse of children and homosexuality too. Priestly celibacy is not a “doctrine” – it’s a Church discipline that is accepted voluntarily by those wishing to become priests.

          • Again, you are amazingly adept at not understanding the import of any distinctions that are made in any answers to you, even whilst upholding your own ones. You make broad and sweeping claims about the tendencies that will result, if anyone, ever, anywhere, is allowed to use contraception. But when asked about the tendency of a doctrine (sorry, “discipline” – a distinction without a difference) of priestly celibacy, are apparently totally unable to understand what the question means, and instead introduce a irrelevant obfuscation about whether Protestant churches are completely free of problems or not. What has that got to do with it? Do you realise that Rome’s doctrine about contraception (does the present Pope believe it as strongly as you, by the way? Or at all?) has not stopped the sexual revolution thoroughly permeating the Roman church world-wide, either? In case you also misunderstand the import of that, let me spell it out: your position is, apparently, that not holding the line on a 100% prohibition of contraception will lead to social chaos. Well, if that were so, we’d expect to see significantly and consistently lower rates of divorce, sexual immorality, etc., in Roman Catholic churches compared to Protestant ones – which isn’t the case. So, the theory fails.

          • Unfortunately, the majority of Catholics, influenced by modernist priests and secular and protestant culture, do not accept the teaching of their Church and believe, mistakenly, they can follow their own malformed consciences in this – just like abortion and same sex marriage. Being a Catholic does not make one immune to evil.
            You, sir, need to understand the distinction between a dogma, a doctrine and a Church discipline.

          • Anton

            And you, Jack, need to understand the difference between what follows unambiguously from scripture (regarding homosexuality and abortion) and what doesn’t (regarding marital contraception).

            You can spout “Thus saith the Pope” if you like but it isn’t the same as “Thus saith the Lord”.

          • Except in following the teachings of bishops we are obeying Christ. That’s unambiguously scriptural.

          • Anton

            Even if the bishops aren’t following the scriptures?

      • The dots really don’t join up in this fashion. Cart before horse. Fornicators precisely nowhere have been held back by what the church thinks of contraception. If you don’t care what God or man thinks about fornication, then you are hardly going to be held back by what anyone thinks about whether you use contraception whilst you’re doing it.

        • That’s not the point. Artificial contraception normalises sex divorced from procreation. The “dots” inevitably lead to a justification of sex as predominantly for pleasure and thus to a justification of premarital sex and homosexual sexual activity. All in the name of luuurve.

          • You miss my point. Contraception didn’t start to exist at the moment that Christians made their peace with it.

            Anyone whose conscience could get past the divine and human disapproval of fornication is hardly going to be held up by disapproval of contraception. Once you’ve swallowed the camel…

            You’re rewriting to suit your favoured cause. Do you have any actual evidence that pre-1930s-fornicators, whilst being quite happy to fornicate, were held back by Christian attitudes to artificial contraception? They discussed using the withdrawal method, perhaps, but then concluded that this was cheating and they should delay their fornication until some Bishops were at peace with condoms, or something like that? (BTW, historical failure rates for condoms are similar to that for withdrawal, at least according to this source – https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2017/failure-rates-most-common-contraceptive-methods-have-improved ).Does this scenario which you’ve invoked not strike you as a bit ridiculous? You really think that pre-modern fornicators were less motivated to fornicate because they had a reduced realisation that sex involves significant pleasure, because their thinking about sex was so dominated by the thought of procreation?

          • And you’re missing my point. Sinners are sinners – and we all are. However, the formation of one’s Christian conscious can be adversely or positively affected by Church teaching. The normalisation of abortion, for example, doesn’t make it any the less objectively sinful because people have been blinded to its moral evil. Personal culpability may be lessened but one is exposed to greater temptation, as a result. And the consequences for a society are dire. It’s the same with divorce and same sex relationships. When the Church positively endorses or equivocates on these issues – and gives moral permission for these serious sins – it draws people into the snares of Satan. The endorsement of contraception by the Church of England) (abortion and soon to come, euthanasia and homosexuality) creates a climate that is hostile to the Gospel message.

          • You can prove anything, and nothing, with such broad brush strokes. Perhaps the real trigger was the C of E no longer requiring head coverings? An equally plausible and implausible case could be made. Clearly, you have a doctrine you wish to promote. But you won’t do yourself any favours by hanging it on a peg that it doesn’t hang on. To take the debate further, you need actual evidence, not just huge generalisations, broad strokes and pointing out that the West is in moral decline. As I say, such observations can prove both everything and nothing.

          • You’re denying the West is moral decline? Surely not.

          • Fr someone able to make so many hair-splitting moral distinctions (e.g. priestly celibacy is not a “doctrine”, it’s a “discipline”), you’re remarkable dense when it comes to following the thread of what someone else is saying.

          • Anton

            He’s not dense.

          • Ah, ad hominem.
            Celibacy is not a divinely revealed doctrine and, indeed, the Catholic Church permits priests to marry – just not in the Latin Church.
            That’s not “hair-splitting”. It’s fact.

          • Anton

            Decent of it, in view of Paul’s words to Timothy (1 Tim 3).

          • Been there … done that … and bought the T-shirt.

          • Anton

            Why then does the Vatican think marital sex is OK when the woman is infertile: when pregnant, or when it is determined she is infertile during her cycle, or during breastfeeding, or beyond menopause? “Open to conception” is a nonsensical phrase in these circumstances, isn’t it?

          • The man and woman are not working against nature by actively seeking to prevent conception by artificial means – that’s the point.

          • Anton

            It’s an adroit change of point, actually.

          • I was thinking the same. Jack’s justification there has changed from the one he was defending in the point you replied to.

          • “Open to conception” means they are not doing anything unnatural to prevent conception.

            Remember Zacharias and Elisabeth? She was barren, and they were both well stricken in years.

          • Anton

            And Abraham and Sarah. But the suggestion is that Sarah at least was beyond the menopause and that the birth of Isaac was therefor a miracle. We cannot routinely expect miracles.

            So it is not “open to conception” if conception is impossible except by a miracle, is it? This is the nonsense here.

          • It’s not artificially closed to conception – that’s the point.

            Sex acts that by their nature could lead to a child if the couple was perfectly or young (i.e. penis in vagina sex, no physical or chemical barrier to conception placed purposefully by the couple) is moral, even if the likelihood of conception is very low or zero. Sex acts that by their nature cannot ever lead to conception no matter the age or how healthy the couple (oral sex to completion, pulling out, anal sex, homosexual contact of any sort) or acts that are purposefully intended to stop conception by unnatural means (contraception, sterilization) are not.

            Regardless of its fertility or infertility on any specific occasion, the coital act is procreative by its nature – as only it can produce life – even when and if procreation does not or cannot. Is the nature of marital relations fundamentally different during the frequent instances when pregnancy does not occur? No. At a certain point, all heterosexual couples become permanently infertile due to age, but does this make the >b>character of their acts wrong. They are no less marital or generative in their nature.

            Sex in the marital act between man and wife is from God, and like any other divine gift, it comes with an objective truth. That truth is that sex is first and foremost a procreative action that must always be ordered towards life, and in order for it to be so, it must be an act of complete, all-inclusive, unrestricted self-giving.

            Artificial contraception does not allow for total self-giving. In fact, it does quite the opposite. It withholds. It shuts off a part of the woman to her husband and eliminates the life giving nature of sex. The same goes for the use of condoms, withdrawal, vasectomies, and any sexual act that isn’t ordered towards life. These are violations of God’s design, a distortion of the marital act, and are always gravely sinful.

  • Anton

    So is The Outlaw still up on Twitter?

    I’d like to know what exactly Inspector “Good” Evans reported him FOR.

  • IanCad

    With Cressida Dick’s ascendancy to the role of the highest ranking police officer in the land, Inspector Mark Evans may be positioning himself for the job.
    The requirements are clear. Promote – and or – practise homsexism; prosecute dissenters, embrace diversity, laud equality, get rich.

    • Chefofsinners

      I thought they had appointed a mystic as head of the Met.
      Miss Dick, it turns out.

      • Penis envy.

        • Chefofsinners

          Perhaps Inspector Evans could be appointed in a role liaising with the gay community: penis envoy.

  • len

    Since the West in its search for a secular paradise free of any religionumoved off our Judeo/ Christian Foundations we seem to have moved into a parallel Universe where like ‘the mad hatters tea party’ nothing
    makes sense anymore.
    We have abandoned order for chaos. And its getting more chaotic and madder as time goes on.
    One can only sit back and watch in amazement.

    • Anton

      It’s only getting going, actually. We had better cure ourselves of our own snowflake tendency if we think life is bad here. What is actually happening is that freedom is being abused here, and is gradually being curtailed in response. (This is a general comment and not aimed at you specifically, Len). Thankfully we have an infinite well to drink of.

      • len

        I believe God is revealing all the hidden things including the corruption which has been concealed for decades. This is going to have far reaching effects as people realise how bad this actually is.

  • Chefofsinners

    The Inspector’s LinkdIn profile begins with the words “I am a career driven individual…”
    I think we can all see that this car exists primarily to drive his career to it’s next destination. Perhaps instead of car it should be a bandwagon.
    And what should that next career destination be? Might I suggest P.C.?

    • Anton

      He is careering around in that car alright.

    • He also says he’s open to offers. Jack has a few suggestions for him.

  • Inspector General

    The Inspector reappears and he is not happy! Organised buggery has sent him (another) virus. A pox on you blighters responsible. Still, it shows that Cranmer’s wisdom is widespread. That’s a good thing…

  • Chefofsinners

    Is there room in that car for George, Jeffrey, Bungle and Zippy?