Uncategorized

Pope Francis says the rights of migrants trump the security of nations. Will he disband the Swiss Guard, tear down the Vatican City Walls, and put up a sign saying ‘Mi casa su casa’?

Goodness!

Let me try to understand: you invite a poor migrant into your home, expressing compassion and understanding, whilst providing food, clothing and shelter; the migrant then asks if his wife may join him, and you agree. After a while, he asks if the rest of his family may come too, and perhaps one or two of his friends who are also fleeing from oppression – why not, you have an attic which could be converted and who needs a dining room anyway? Soon, your guests complain they don’t like the food – they demand special diets and get angry when you cannot provide. Eventually, they tell you they do not want you in the house and throw you out. There is nothing you can do, for the laws of the land protect their occupancy. Now it is you who has nowhere to go.

Just like an extended visit from the Vesey Stanhopes!

This is what, in essence, the Bishop of Rome advocates. He says, loftily and with a shrug of the pontifical shoulders, that the rights of migrants trump the security of nations. Is the man stark raving mad? One wonders. Does he plan to lead the way by disbanding the Swiss Guard, tearing down the Vatican City Walls and putting up a sign saying ‘Mi casa su casa’?

No, of course not. The man is not so much infallible as insufferable. The Archdeacon summed it up quite pithily:

“So, some obscure tequila-swigging prelate infused with liberation theology and the Gospel of St. Marx is plucked out of relative obscurity and plonked on St. Peter’s throne by the Powers of Darkness to tell us all we should bare our throats to the Saracen invader? At least the old fool has revealed himself as a dyed-in-the-wool garlic-munching Globalist glove puppet peddling dangerous platitudes and moralistic nihilism, not to mention being a willing gravedigger for Western civilisation. He makes me yearn for the restoration of Cardinal Ratflinger!”

Heaven knows I am no papist, but the Archdeacon’s diatribe seemed more than a little extreme.

“Perhaps Pope Francis is simply reminding us of our Christian duty to help those less fortunate… and I am sure he is teetotal, Archdeacon,” I replied, not being sure of anything of the sort.

There followed a loud ‘Harrumph!’ before he stomped off to an engagement at the Mechanics’ Institute. I doubt if those assembled were going to experience a Pleasant Sunday Afternoon, despite what it said on the posters.

Mr. Slope has an encyclopaedic knowledge of London’s statuary and is most interesting on the subject. He has spent many an hour hanging around Piccadilly in search of Eros, and has a particular fondness for Nelson’s Column. Imagine his outrage then, when a lemon-sucking moral-high-ground-climbing femanazi, writing (if one calls it that) for The Guardian, declared we should remove such monuments immediately in imitation of the current American craze. Nelson’s Column offends minorities apparently. My advice to such delicate, snowflake-ish souls is ‘Don’t look up’.

I took issue with Sir Abraham Haphazzard the other day over a case reported in The Jupiter, whereby a judge decided not to incarcerate a Somalian couple who entered this country illegally because they were “honest, hard-working people”. Instead they were handed a suspended sentence. My question to my learned friend was simply this: “How can these people be honest when they entered the country dishonestly?” Sir Abraham pondered this for a moment, stroking his dundrearies whilst rattling his loose change (a habit gentlemen often engage in during idle moments, I believe).

“Madam, things are simply not black and white.”

“On the contrary, Sir Abraham, I think they are.”

An extraordinary event took place in the Parish Church of St. Fidelia-in-the-Undergrowth on Wednesday evening, when a rough-looking bunch of men and one blousy-female burst in and demanded use of the side chapel for ‘rehearsals’. The incumbent, the Rev’d Cornelius Whopping, bravely enquired what exactly was it they wanted to rehearse, this being a place of worship and not a secular space?

The leader of the pack stepped forwards.

“It’s like this, vicar. We is your parishioners, and as such have a right to use this gaff as and when. One of the lads is getting hitched next week and we are planning his stag do. Dolly ‘ere is going to do a pole dance – she’s a big lass and can straddle with the best of ’em. We thought she could practise on one of your columns. The lads had come along to give moral support.”

“Out of the question,” replied the hapless Whopping, upon which they grabbed hold and propelled him into the vestry, jamming the door close with a strategically-placed pew.

The poor vicar could only listen to the loud guffaws and indecent whoops through the keyhole. When all was quiet, some hours later, he managed to attract the attention of a street urchin and secure his release. The whole affair has been reported to the police, who promised to do everything they could to find the miscreants and bring them before the beak. No doubt the magistrate will describe them as ‘honest, hard-working people’ and give them a suspended sentence, black now being white and all that. One despairs.

One must spare a thought for poor Emperor Macron, whose popularity-rating is now much lower than a legless dachshund. The French are notorious for their love-hate relationship with their rulers, but disenchantment this time set in faster than Mrs. Dismay reneges on her election promises.  Perhaps he should revive a bit of ‘La Gloire’, move into Versailles and declare himself the ‘Son King’ – after all, he married his mother.

Well my dears, I must away and write up my diary. Such a busy week, what with one thing and another. So, as the hedgehog of justice curls up before the pantechnicon of political correctness and the parasol of common law is turned inside out by the blustering winds of Westminster, I bid you all goodnight. Until next week.

  • David

    Good morning Mrs Proudie, and many thanks indeed for today’s brightener.
    Perhaps the irascible Archdeacon is a little windy in his condemnations, but I am afraid that increasingly I see the current liberation theology fuelled Pope as little more than a clear communist in a cassock.

  • Gregory Morris

    Can’t you post twice a week, Mrs P? It brightens up my day.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    I seem to remember a Persian greeting “our house is your house”. What do Persians really think of guests who turn it the other way round?

    • David

      Astute point !

    • Manfarang

      Are you sure it is a house and not a tent?

      • IrishNeanderthal

        From the Persian Wikipedia entry for the word I heard used, خانه , Google translated:

        A home is a safe place to rest, live and relax. In this place, usually a person or a family lives and stores their belongings. In traditional and popular culture, sometimes the term “four walls” is used instead of home. New homes include sanitation and food facilities, but in some areas, some tribes also have homes that have not developed, have amenities or even have a permanent location. Nobility is one of the types of this kind of life.

        A house is usually the most private property of an individual or a family in the community, which has special and special privacy and security. Today, houses are often built as apartments, due to the lack of land in the cities.

        The three houses illustrated are:
        An example of a wooden skeleton home in the city of Schiphol of Germany (Google Translate has really got mixed up here. The actual Persian refers to Mosbach in Germany.)
        A typical wooden house in Eastern Europe
        An example of a California villa in the United States

  • Inspector General

    Good Day to you Mrs Proudie

    Frank’s wait is over. His GCSE (or whatever ‘O’ levels are called these days) results have arrived. He failed history. He did not understand that it was wanton migration that brought down the power of Rome around 410 AD. Those beautiful buildings of theirs. Just left to fall down. That seems to be our lot in the future. Warring gangs of migrants roaming the land, settling old scores, and killing and destroying. White civilisation in tatters. And the ever present evil of Allah everywhere.

    On the plus side. It is Saturday and one intends to end his imminent constitutional at his current alma mater, the New Mouse and Wheel, where he can still find a pint of Guinness and enjoyable company.

    Until laters, dear lady.

    • IrishNeanderthal

      Alas, inspector, maybe it is our hubris in thinking it “white” civilization that is bringing this nemesis upon us?

      Have you read about the recent lockdown in Cromer because travellers have been trashing pubs. Near to the Neanderthal cave there is an estate where there are few if any pubs because the natives have been going round trashing one place of refreshment then moving on to the next.

      I have heard of a Somali family, probably housed there by the local council, who found it too dangerous and moved to London.

      • Inspector General

        I say, Neanderthal, wouldn’t it be marvellous if the Somali family returned with a tooled up Somali gang to take on the Travellers!

        What sport that would be!

        Shouldn’t think the police would interfere. Well, they couldn’t. Two highly privileged and protected ethnic whatevers having a go at each other. All they could do would be to stand around, and take bets on the outcome…

        • IrishNeanderthal

          But which Somalis? See this article:

          Save our war memorials: Lottery to fund anti-tribalism project to teach youths about ‘Mad Mullah’

          Funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund is to be used so disaffected youths can learn about a Somali religious leader known as the “Mad Mullah” while Britain’s war memorials are starved of cash they need for vital repairs.

          The HLF has found money for the project in Hounslow, which is being run by the Anti-Tribalism Movement, a non-profit social reform movement which works to eradicate “tribalism”.

          Somali society is divided along clan lines, with bitter feuds between rival groups, and there is deep concern that tribal divides are influencing the large Somali population in Britain, particularly teenagers.

          Called a Legend to Learn From, it will see young people research Hassan, a key figure in Somali resistance to colonial rule. Somalia had, in 1884, been divided into five parts by the colonial powers, with one part, British Somaliland, in the north of modern Somalia.

          A Somali I asked about this went off like a volcano. The people of Somaliland (independent of the other lot but not recognized internationally) had fought with the British against the “Mad Mullah”, and had not received anything in return. (In case you think this is a small matter, neglect of Ghanaian war veterans who had fought with the British Army in Burma during WW2, and the shooting of a few demonstrators in a group protesting about this, was what sparked off the Ghanaian independence movement.)

          * * * * * * *

          The relevance of this to your suggestion is that that section of the Somalis who like the “Mad Mullah” would be more likely to find common cause with the travellers.

          • Inspector General

            Interesting idea. You join in with the British Army. You get paid, from somewhere, and afterwards you have a lien on the British Empire for your services so rendered. A sort of 3 wishes, without the fairy godmother needing to show up.

            Must take this up with one’s employer on Tuesday. As his servant, it appears that one has a right to tell him what to do.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Inspector,

            You know that the MoD have a reputation for being stingy even with home-grown servicemen.

            Their predecessors have sometimes been no better. I have heard that, after the British Navy, in the time of Good Queen Bess, beat that monster called something like the Spanish Armadillo, the victorious ailors were ignored and within a month had found themselves close to starvation.

          • Inspector General

            It’s an established shame, Neanderthal. There was no money in Portsmouth to pay the men off. Also, if they left their ship without leave to do so, they would forfeit their pay. So they stayed on board, and disease cut the numbers down…as the Queen and all the other ingrates would have expected…

        • Anton

          Better entertainment than Mayweather vs McGregor?

    • Merchantman

      Until ‘Afters’ don’t you mean?

  • bluedog

    A breath of fresh air, Mrs P, a veritable Hurricane Harvey of astute observation. One delights in each new revelation about the Emperor Micron, in particular the disclosure that his spending on make-up has already reached 26,000 euros during the brief tenure of his presidency. One anticipates howls of jealousy from our favourite French blogger (no, Cressida, not you). The Emperor’s somewhat oedipal marital arrangements may be starting to lead to allegations which one is certain are without foundation, so to speak.

  • len

    Migrants are leaving their Countries for a variety of reasons.Some are genuinely fleeing for their lives and the lives of family members . I do have a problem though with young men leaving their Country to be overrun by terrorist groups when they could have stayed and fought for their Country much as the Kurd’s are doing.
    It seems though ,that having fled the brutal and barbarous conditions that they have escaped from to the safe and prosperous West that some migrants want to set up the same conditions in the west ie sharia law and the dominating and stifling Islamic religion.Not only this Muslims want the host nation to comply with Islam.It seems impossible for Islam to exist in an secular or a Christian society without wanting to impose itself on that society by whatever means.

    • Manfarang

      The Muslim Kurds don’t have a country.

      • Royinsouthwest

        That is why they are fighting for one.

        • Manfarang

          For a bit of ethnic cleansing.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    I see that they’re doing at least something right in Pakistan:

    Pakistani school drops plans to sing John Lennon’s Imagine after accusations it encourages atheism

    From the article, it appears that Lennon himself was completely clueless about the import of his own song.

    Lenin becomes Lennon: As US struggles with Confederate legacy Ukraine announces end to communist monuments

    I do not think that Lennonism is a good replacement for Leninsm. “Imagine there’s no countries” . . . isn’t that what Juncker etc are after? Not to mention el gran pontificador.

    And as for “Imagine there’s no heaven”, I remember a lady getting very miffed at me for calling it “the Devil’s own song”.

    • James60498 .

      I remember being at Catholic college when we all had a turn at doing a talk in our weekly RE lessons.

      I have no idea now what I for my talk on and have forgotten everyone else’s talks too except one. It was over 30 years ago.

      But I will never forget that one did a talk praising “Imagine” and explaining how wonderful it was. The reason I remember it. Because the person who did the talk was going on to become a Priest.

      Another thing I remember about him was that he had decided to become a Jesuit Priest. I had no idea why at the time. Now I can see.

      • Albert

        Wow! Did he become a Jesuit? Also, do you remember why or how he was praising “Imagine”? It’s a very stupid song if you ask me and is the kind of thing an atheist should be ashamed of.

        • James60498 .

          It was more than 30 years ago and I haven’t seen him since so I don’t know. I had been considering the Priesthood myself two or three years earlier but knew nothing about the Jesuits and had no understanding why someone would be so intent on joining them as opposed to any other Order or Diocese.

          I think his view of “Imagine” was just to do with everyone getting on and being nice. I do remember asking him about the reference to “No God”. From what I can remember he just brushed it off as being unimportant.

          • Albert

            Thank you – extraordinary not to notice the atheism that is the backbone of the song.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Another depressing Jesuit tale…smacks of secular/protestanism. !

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Have you read “The Enduring Chill” by Flannery O’Connor?

  • Dolphinfish

    Well, the Pope is the Pope, and that’s that. Kind of…

    https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2017/08/19/on-fr-nichols-recent-remarks/

  • He makes me yearn for the restoration of Cardinal Ratflinger

    The historian Andrew Roberts, writing about Lord Black’s autobiography:

    Lord Black’s memoir reveals that at a small dinner party given at the home of Cardinal Gerald Emmett Carter, the then-cardinal archbishop of Toronto, in 1990, the then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger—now Pope Benedict—‘lamented “the slow suicide of Europe”: its population was aging and shrinking, and the unborn were being partly replaced by unassimilable immigrants.’

    Analysing the phrase ‘unassimilable immigrants’, Roberts concludes: ‘So now should be the time that Pope Benedict XVI speaks in public about the phenomenon that everyone knows is true, but because of political correctness most of us shrink from saying. It’s hard to think of better words than his own: the slow suicide of Europe is taking place in large part due to unassimilable Islamic immigration.’

    After Pope Benedict’s Regensburg speech, the then-cardinal archbishop of Buenos Aires said: ‘Pope Benedict’s statement don’t reflect my own opinions…These statements will serve to destroy in 20 seconds the careful construction of a relationship with Islam that Pope John Paul II built over the last twenty years.’

    Pope Benedict was insufficiently enthusiastic about the Islamization of Europe. He had to be got rid of.

    • Merchantman

      ‘ Pope Benedict was insufficiently enthusiastic………’The rolling coup and defenestrating underway in Trumplestiltskins White House betrays a similar path and likely fate for The Man himself.
      The dark powers and their outriders are busy.

      • @ Merchantman—Since Charlottesville there has been a concerted attack on pro-Western* organizations, individuals and websites. PayPal accounts and other methods of payment have been cancelled, websites are down, Facebook and Twitter accounts have been deleted.

        * Otherwise known as racist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi…

  • SonoView

    Dear Lady,
    Panic not over poor Emperor Macron, he is already working on La Gloire. Indeed it has been reported in The Daily Wail that since being enthroned he has spent millions of ducats on makeup. Surely this is to ensure that he gets maximum coverage and that his face “shines like the sun”.
    I am sure that you, Madam, would never be seen in public without first being touched up by a little pancake. To be seen blushing is so Retro!

  • Albert

    Pope Francis says the rights of migrants trump the security of nations.

    I think we need his own words here:

    The principle of the centrality of the human person, firmly stated by my beloved Predecessor, Benedict XVI, obliges us to always prioritise personal safety over national security. It is necessary, therefore, to ensure that agents in charge of border control are properly trained. The situation of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees requires that they be guaranteed personal safety and access to basic services. For the sake of the fundamental dignity of every human person, we must strive to find alternative solutions to detention for those who enter a country without authorisation.

    In other words, he disagrees with the idea that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people. And that is surely right. He is simply asking that a person who arrives should be treated according to their human rights. That of course might meaning take some risk. But everything involves risk. The idea that we are innocent until proven guilty involves the risk that the guilty go free. But that’s right. Compare with Stalin’s maxim that it is worth getting 10 innocent people to catch one guilty.

    Will he disband the Swiss Guard, tear down the Vatican City Walls, and put up a sign saying ‘Mi casa su casa’?

    He’s not saying he is opposed to security, so the Swiss Guard comment is moot. He’s already providing for the homeless:

    http://www.romereports.com/en/2017/01/12/pope-francis-opens-vatican-shelters-for-24-hours-to-protect-homeless-from-the-cold/

    And as for the Vatican walls, the last time I was in Rome, I found they were hardly impregnable (and judging by the crowds in St Peter’s Piazza, my secret way in was known by quite a few other people – perhaps the inquisition should be closing down the channels of information about that breach in the walls).

    • dannybhoy

      “The situation of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees requires that they be guaranteed personal safety and access to basic services. For the sake of the fundamental dignity of every human person, we must strive to find alternative solutions to detention for those who enter a country without authorisation.”
      So he would support Dannybhoy in his “voice in the wilderness” Crusade for Secure Refugee Camps anap to their Country of Origin?
      That is the most obvious and sensible solution to this whole ‘fugee/economic migrant mess we – no, not ‘we’ our cowardly and pompous politicians have gotten us into..
      They who would rather sacrifice our whole way of life than admit they got it wrong and haven’t got the balls to confront the problem head on.
      I hope we all see this.
      These miserable excuses for political leaders would rather that their populations face potential death at public venues, terrorist attacks and the rape and harassment of our womenfolk and girls than deal severely with those who commit it.
      In bygone years it would be described as treason, and the culprit would be hung drawn and quartered. Now we call it human rights, cultural diversity and tolerance. Until they start getting tough with those who commit such acts politicians will continue to sacrifice the public on the twin altars of appeasement and deception.

      • David

        Hear, hear.
        International law is right. Those in danger, forced to become refugees, should be given safe, decent accommodation in the first available country. An adjacent country usually has a similar culture. From there they can return to rebuild once conflict ceases. Most of those travelling towards Europe are economic migrants and not true refugees in the legal sense, and therefore different responses are appropriate.

      • Merchantman

        ‘These miserable excuses for political leaders’. Well said dannybhoy. Question about Europe’s destination is answered daily by their negligence of their primary duty to secure the borders. One would be excused for thinking the present Pope would make an excellent Madame selling off the population to slavers of one sort or another, be it Globalists, their PC Neo- Marxist facilitators or the Barbary Pirates of the coasts.
        At least ex-PM Bruin bought the navy a couple of gunboats. Lets hope Mrs Dismay knows how to use them.

        • Albert

          One would be excused for thinking the present Pope would make an excellent Madame selling off the population to slavers of one sort or another,

          No, I don’t think you’d be excused for saying that. It’s clearly not what he is about.

      • Albert

        I’m actually not sure what you’ve said here.

        • bluedog

          Well read it again, Albert.

          • Albert

            I read it twice. Was it originally written in a foreign language?

          • bluedog

            Possibly not. It’s a passionate stream of thoughts that strikes one as expressing deep insecurity and concern about the future.

          • Albert

            It struck me as being so emotional that its real message was unclear, but that its emotionalism had struck a chord with a few people who had upvoted it.

    • carl jacobs

      The Gov’t of nation X has no responsibility (legal, moral, or otherwise) for the people of nation Y. The Gov’t of nation X is under no obligation to open its borders to non-citizens from nation Y – especially when those non-citizens pose a threat to the citizens of nation X. It is a given that the Gov’t of nation X hold a clear fiduciary responsibility for the security of its own citizens.

      And, yes, we do honor the principle that one must die that many might live. Visit the cemetery at Normandy and you will see the proof.

      • Albert

        There’s so much here to comment on, but have you actually read what the Pope has said? And what is the moral basis for your first claim?

        • carl jacobs

          I’m not responding to the Pope. I’m responding to you. I don’t much care what this Pope says – unless of course I can use his words to annoy Jack.

          Rightful scope of authority. The king can only be responsible for his own realm. The duty he holds to his own subjects is clear. If you think he holds a duty to those outside his scope of authority, then you need to establish it. “Bad things happening over there” is not a sufficient reason.

          • Albert

            If you think he holds a duty to those outside his scope of authority, then you need to establish it.

            Well firstly, I wasn’t altogether. My reading of the Pope’s words is that he is primarily talking about people already on our doorstep – i.e. at or across the border. And that would certainly be my main contention personally. I’m not sure about the whole question of refugees and migrants. But the moment someone is in “my” jurisdiction or at its gate, I think my jurisdiction is responsible for them, even if that is so to a lesser degree than to my own citizens. I suspect you agree.

            To the degree however that the Pope goes beyond this, I think that human borders are human inventions. I think that a shared humanity, made in the image of God creates greater ties. On your grounds, as far as I can see, it is not possible for a country to breach the human rights of the peoples of another, and I cannot agree to that.

            If you think he holds a duty to those outside his scope of authority, then you need to establish it.

            Because I think we always have responsibilities beyond those over whom we have formal authority. For example, if I discover that a local Catholic priest is abusing children, I will not be without fault if I do nothing on the grounds that I have no authority over the parish and therefore no responsibility for the well-being of the children.

            As far as the Pope’s remarks are concerned, I think the matter is complicated. I think it possible that the Pope over simplifies the matter (but that might be a good thing, if you read his words they are very general). But in the end, it comes to this:

            “There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz’arus, full of sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz’arus in his bosom. And he called out, `Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz’arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’
            But Abraham said, `Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz’arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ And he said, `Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, `They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’
            And he said, `No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’
            He said to him, `If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.'”

            The poor man lay at the rich man’s gate – not on his property. But Jesus makes him the responsibility of the rich man, for no reason other than that the rich man has the means to relieve the poor man’s misery.

          • Hardly an applicable analogy. What if it’s a poor man, healthy and angry, with his cousins and sons, who breaks the gate or climbs over the fence and demands membership in the rich man’s family, for which he has contempt, expects to be housed, clothed and fed special treats and to be allowed to help himself to the daughters?

          • Albert

            Yes. Where’s the evidence that that is the scenario the Pope is talking about? I keep asking for the evidence, but none is forthcoming. I wonder why.

          • I’m responding to your analogy, not to what the Pope may or may not have said.

          • Albert

            My point would be that the scenario you have given would not work with my analogy, and so consequently, it would not be possible to apply it. If people do that sort of thing, bang them up and then expel them.

          • No that wasn’t your point, Albert. You were comparing the story of Lazarus to the situation…not a hypothetical “scenario” but a reality… of masses of un-vetted migrants pouring uninvited into Europe…or more precisely into chosen European countries.

          • Albert

            No I wasn’t because I was referring to the Pope’s letter, and his letter, as I understand it (and perhaps I am wrong, but I’m awaiting evidence to the contrary) does not envisage such a scenario.

          • Your sophistry is astounding, Albert. Nothing to do with what scenario the Pope may have envisaged. It’s really simple: You made the analogy in the last paragraph in your own words and that’s what I addressed. Not sure what you’re trying to say now; are you withdrawing any comparisons between Lazarus of your Gospels and the situation of the migrants?

          • Albert

            It’s not sophistry – it’s just that you’ve imposed on my words something I did not say, do not mean and cannot be inferred from either. I am restricting myself to the idea of people in genuine need. I’m not including terrorists. What on earth made you think I was? I find it astonishing that anyone thinks that is what I meant. Do you think that someone who believes in helping someone in genuine need must, logically be committed to letting terrorists in? If so, please show your working – it will either be sophistry or nonsense.

          • Did I mention terrorists? I contrasted a scenario of a a sick man lying before the gates of a rich man versus one of masses of people we know squat about, who paid large sums of money to criminals to be brought into Europe and who force themselves across borders to countries they prefer. I don’t see a resemblance between the two scenarios, That’s my “working.”

            Your version is to custom-tailure reality. To set out a priori that these people are all in genuine need, without defining “need,” being able to differentiate between “need” and let’s say, “want very much,” disregarding needs and wants of the host peoples, and by ignoring the lack of resemblance between helping an individual at little cost to one’s family and being obligated to process and take in an unlimited number of people at a great cost to an entire sub-continent. That’s all I’m saying; your Lazarus analogy is inapplicable to the reality at hand. You might as well have said that we are obligated to take migrants in because
            “Lord” is the most common noun in the Bible.

          • Albert

            You talked about people who breaks the gate or climbs over the fence I thought you meant they were violent i.e. that you were using your own analogy!

            who paid large sums of money to criminals to be brought into Europe

            But where is the Pope talking about this? Or this: and who force themselves across borders to countries they prefer

            What you keep doing is applying my words (and the Pope’s) to scenarios that neither of us is addressing. The fact that some people people smuggle, that others break in by force, that some may be terrorist or whatever, does not mean that we should treat the others with less dignity than their humanity and their human rights require. It is only these others who are being talked about – as far as I can see, at least.

          • All of the migrants came by way of smugglers, spending thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars, and most climb over and break through borders to get to the countries they prefer. I’m still trying to find a comparison between them and Lazarus, a single ailing individual. Perhaps I’m missing something. Was he actually a young, healthy, aggressive man and did he and his family waiting in nearby bushes pay someone to haul him over to a rich man’s gate, then climbed over it, pushed his way in to the best room in the house and demanded that his family be brought in as well? Perhaps so; I don’t know your scriptures as well as you do.

            Is this the moral principle to be applied to immigration or refugee issues? Not one based on benefits to the host where immigration is concerned, nor who the neediest are regarding refugees, but solely on the desires of moneyed ones willing to break laws as they storm beaches and stream en masse towards favoured destinations like invaders? If it is, what moral right do you have to expect others to hold by such unusual tolerances?

          • Albert

            All of the migrants came by way of smugglers, spending thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars, and most climb over and break through borders to get to the countries they prefer.

            All of them? There are no legitimate migrants? This is the kind of thing I am complaining about – a complete misrepresentation.

          • I don’t know, Albert, maybe not all of them. Maybe some walked across half of Africa on a candy bar and a bottle of Perrier and swam across the Mediterranean on their own, on a rubber duckie floater. Could happen. Anyway, why do so few stay put in Greece, Turkey,Italy or Spain and make their proper refugee claim there, instead of tossing their papers and climbing over mountains and barbed wire to get to the colder countries? Had enough of sunshine?

            You’re missing the point again. There is nothing wrong with being a refugee or with economic migration, but no country should be expected to remove requirements and take in anyone who manages to plant a sneaker on its territory.

          • Albert

            Anyway, why do so few stay put in Greece, Turkey,Italy or Spain and make their proper refugee claim there, instead of tossing their papers and climbing over mountains and barbed wire to get to the colder countries? Had enough of sunshine?

            But where does he say anything about that?

            but no country should be expected to remove requirements and take in anyone who manages to plant a sneaker on its territory.

            I agree, but that problem is statistical, the need for the individual refugee is not.

          • PeterKovatchev

            I’m debating you, Albert, not the Pope. It’s not a statistical problem; it’s an economic one, a security one and a cultural one. Who said that the only way to satisfy the need of refugees is to let them march through half the length of Europe to a country with good welfare benefits?

          • Albert

            Who said that the only way to satisfy the need of refugees is to let them march through half the length of Europe to a country with good welfare benefits?

            Are you really debating me? Because I can’t see for the life of me where I have said anything like that.

          • Anton

            Legitimate migrants enter by legitimate means.

          • Albert

            Yes. So what’s your point?

          • Anton

            I can safely leave that as an exercise for the reader.

          • carl jacobs

            In your own quote of the Pope he referred to “migrants, asylum seekers and refugees”. He makes the distinction.

          • Albert

            In making the distinction he does no elide them as some have claimed.

          • carl jacobs

            He clearly juxtaposed “national security” with “migrants”. This is exactly the situation that Avi was talking about. You seem to be asserting that migrants can be removed for cause but cannot be turned away a priori. If they can get to Europe, you seem to think they become the permanent responsibility of the receiving gov’t unless they do something that makes them a risk. But that turns the situation on its head. They don’t have the right to be there in the first place.

          • Albert

            Well let’s see what he has said:

            The principle of the centrality of the human person, firmly stated by my beloved Predecessor, Benedict XVI,[5] obliges us to always prioritise personal safety over national security

            Now, I think this is poorly phrased. But there is a truth here and it is parallel to innocent until proven guilty. Forget immigration, let’s just isolate the principle. We could lock up all Muslims on the grounds that some of them might be terrorists, and not locking them up would leave them out to get us. But that would be wrong, for we prioritise the principle of innocent until proven guilty over national security. Now that point does not mean that have no interest in national security.

            If you go to Rome, you find that in order to get into St Peter’s you have to go through security. Quite right too. But supposing someone is taken ill and the nearest medical centre is in the Vatican. Should the Vatican prioritise the security over the illness? I don’t think so, and it would be extraordinary logic to say “You’ve prioritised illness over national security, therefore you don’t believe in national security” – and so the pathological catastrophisation would run and run until the scenarios mentioned here are suddenly imposed on the Pope.

            You seem to be asserting that migrants can be removed for cause but cannot be turned away a priori.

            Is there a word missing here?

            If they can get to Europe, you seem to think they become the permanent responsibility of the receiving gov’t unless they do something that makes them a risk.

            Where have I said that? Or what have I said that entails that?

            They don’t have the right to be there in the first place.

            Quite. They should be sent packing. But while they are with us, they should not be denied their basic rights.

          • carl jacobs

            They should be sent packing. But while they are with us, they should not be denied their basic rights.

            Agreed. That is not what the Pope is talking about. If illegals are detained and deported, that would not bring national security into question. He is talking about letting Muslim refugees into Europe knowing full well that some of them will be terrorists. That is the national security risk in view. That is the risk he believes that Europe should accept.

            By the way, “basic human rights” does not include access to the court system to appeal for asylum.

          • Albert

            If that is what he is saying, then he clearer strikes on a difficult problem: the need to protect a refugee and the need for security. The problem is that in your scenario the risk is statistical (some will be terrorists) while the need for refuge is not.

          • carl jacobs

            Sorry for the delay Albert. Yesterday was busy, and … well … football is back on TV so … one has to prioritize that which is important.

            On your grounds, as far as I can see, it is not possible for a country to breach the human rights of the peoples of another, and I cannot agree to that.

            If the king invades and occupies another dominion then he assumes responsibility for the nations conquered.

            But the moment someone is in “my” jurisdiction or at its gate, I think my jurisdiction is responsible for them, even if that is so to a lesser degree than to my own citizens.

            If however a man smuggles himself into the king’s country, then the man must be treated humanely, but he does not thereby acquire the full rights of a citizen, and may be ejected at the king’s discretion. A man doesn’t acquire the legal right to stay simply because he arrives. The king may allow him to stay as an act of grace. The king is not obligated to let him stay.

            If there is a mass of refugees on the border, the king is not obligated to open his border. If he has the power, he may compel them to remain outside. Lebanon is a good example of why. About 20% of Lebanon’s current population is Syrian refugees. Is it an acceptable risk to destabilize Lebanon and potentially ignite a civil war in order to help Syrian refugees? The principle responsibility of the Lebanese Gov’t is to the citizens of Lebanon. Whom should the Lebanese Gov’t (such as it is) put first? Don’t run way from Lebanon, Albert. If National Security is less important than the fate of refugees then that principle applies to Lebanon. If you say that Lebanon wouldn’t be so bound because of its circumstance, then you have admitted that this is an argument about risk assessment and not principle.

            Because I think we always have responsibilities beyond those over whom we have formal authority.

            Who is “we”? You are basically asserting that some people in Country X have a perfect duty to sacrifice themselves in order to save the lives of refugees from country Y. You are essentially saying “Yes, some of us might get run over by a truck in the street, but ‘we’ have the obligation to assume that risk.” Why? Why should they be asked to assume that duty? Why should the gov’t risk citizens to whom it has a clear obligation of protection for the sake of those for whom it has no obligation at all? Saying that there is always an obligation doesn’t make it so.

            Gov’ts are not people. It is a capital mistake to anthropomorphize gov’ts and expect them to behave as personified human actors. The gov’t could not fulfill its divine mandate if that was the case. This is an error that you repeatedly make.

          • Albert

            If the king invades and occupies another dominion then he assumes responsibility for the nations conquered.

            And if he just decides to bomb them?

            If however a man smuggles himself into the king’s country, then the man must be treated humanely, but he does not thereby acquire the full rights of a citizen, and may be ejected at the king’s discretion.

            I find nothing there with which to disagree. In fact, I’m not going to continue fisking your post, because I find very little in it with which to disagree. In fact, I’m finding that the rule here is that The prevailing attitude…was one of heavy disagreement with a number of things which the [speaker] had not said.

          • carl jacobs

            You quoted the Pope as saying …

            obliges us to always prioritise personal safety over national security.

            This statement is false on its face. You just granted that it is false by saying you couldn’t disagree with my previous post. But if we grant it for the sake of argument, then exactly what national security priority must be sacrificed for the sake of personal safety?

            And if he just decides to bomb them?

            What is his reason?

          • Albert

            The first point I think I have just answered. The second point I would say, the case is arbitrary.

          • carl jacobs

            Where have you just answered?

            If the case is arbitrary, then the reason is that military power is an extension of politics. He must need to compel the country in question but doesn’t need to occupy it.

          • Albert

            It was a rather long answer, in which I fisked the document, so if you’ll forgive me I won’t try to repost it.

            Are you saying a leader which uses force against the people of another country to compel that country for arbitrary reasons, does nothing wrong?

    • Royinsouthwest

      One man did die for all the people.

      • Albert

        Yes, but when Caiaphas says it, he says it cynically.

    • Anton

      The principle of the centrality of the human person… obliges us to always prioritise personal safety over national security… The situation of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees requires that they be guaranteed personal safety and access to basic services.

      That is true of refugees, but Pope Francis ignores the fact that many emigrants and asylum seekers are not at any recently elevated personal risk in their home countries but are merely seeking a better life in Europe while posing as refugees. I find it impossible to believe he is unaware of that fact, and his refusal to engage with the real issue is disingenuous.

      His full statement, in English on the Vatican website:

      https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/migration/documents/papa-francesco_20170815_world-migrants-day-2018.html

      • Albert

        Yes, I’m inclined to have much more sympathy over the question of genuine refugees. Some of what Pope Francis says seems fair enough:

        This must be ongoing, as far as possible, in the country of migration, guaranteeing them adequate consular assistance, the right to personally retain their identity documents at all times, fair access to justice, the possibility of opening a personal bank account, and a minimum sufficient to live on. When duly recognised and valued, the potential and skills of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees are a true resource for the communities that welcome them.

        But then he goes from here to say:

        This is why I hope that, in countries of arrival, migrants may be offered freedom of movement, work opportunities, and access to means of communication, out of respect for their dignity.

        The meaning here is unclear. If he means “It would be better if migrants were free to move around the host country rather than being locked up in some kind of detention centre” then that seems fair enough. But if he means, that we should have no borders then I can’t agree with that.

        I find it impossible to believe he is unaware of that fact, and his refusal to engage with the real issue is disingenuous.

        This seems harsh. The document seems clear that it is often not possible to distinguish between migrant and refugee. For example,

        I have repeatedly expressed my particular concern for the lamentable situation of many migrants and refugees fleeing from war, persecution, natural disasters and poverty.

        What is a migrant genuinely fleeing war, persecution, natural disaster or poverty? In the case of the first two, he is surely a refugee? Reading the document, it does not seem to me that he is calling for opening of borders.

        His main point is perhaps summed up here:

        I want to emphasise the importance of offering migrants and refugees adequate and dignified initial accommodation.

        It’s hard to disagree with that, isn’t it?

        • Anton

          It begs (in the correct sense!) the question of how the migrants got into the country in the first place.

  • Father David

    Just back from visiting my 99 year old mother-in-law in a nursing home and I am enormously grateful to those from Eastern European countries who care for her in time of frailty and old age.

    • dannybhoy

      No ethnic British employed there?

      • Father David

        Currently there is a big banner outside the Nursing Home which states “RECRUITING NOW”. This is situated on a very busy road which must be seen by thousands of “ethnic British” passing by. The Home would collapse overnight without the lovely East European carers.

        • Chefofsinners

          The problem is not a lack of migrants, it is the selfishness of our society. Most of the people in care homes should be living with their families.
          “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” 1 Tim 5:8

          • Father David

            I suspect, dear CoS that you have not visited many of our Care Homes. My mother-in-law was cared for in our home by us for the past five years but following numerous falls alas, home care became impossible. At 99 Ma can no longer walk a step, is practically blind and almost stone deaf. We would have deeply desired to care for her until the end but her current frail state has sadly shewn this to be an impossibility. So, we are enormously grateful for the foreign nationals who now care for her with frequent daily visits from my wife and myself.

          • Chefofsinners

            Not your mother. Many, many of the people in nursing homes. I visit these places regularly and see large numbers who could be cared for at home, and a few years ago would have been.

          • Cressida de Nova

            A terrible truth and indictment of our selfish culture. In China it is illegal not to care for your elders. I heard you were tied to a termite mound and left in the Arizona desert. Evidently not:)

      • Malcolm Smith

        I am an Australian who has just returned from a brief visit to England. The staff in the major hotels were very helpful and efficient, but there seemed to be a rule about never hiring anybody with a British accent. I mentioned this to one of the security guards, who was employed by a security firm rather than the hotel, and therefore was allowed to be a native Briton. He replied that I wasn’t the first person to make that comment.

    • David

      I’m glad that your mother is being well cared for.
      My mother who is 96, also frail and recently with dementia, is being equally if not even better cared for in a Welsh care and nursing home by a staff which is 100% very locally recruited. Most of them literally, walk to their work. Given my mothers strong local accent and sayings, coupled with her recently slurred diction, it is indeed fortunate that the staff understand her, as even a non-local native English speaker would struggle.
      So the picture is complex. Some foreign staff will still be needed after our separation, politically and legally, from the EU. Like most complex matters sweeping assertions are seldom helpful.
      I do however feel for those small villages and towns in parts of Eastern Europe where local employment opportunities are limited, and where they are now suffering from a social – age imbalance; the splitting up of families resulting in insufficient support for their own ageing relatives. We have to factor all that into our moral equation don’t we ?
      But the group I feel for the most are the working class building tradesmen and professional truck drivers who have seen their wages artificially held down by the influx of young Eastern European tradesmen who come here in groups, roughing it, literally camping out in the very buildings they are working in; in this way they are to submitt tenders that undercut our tradesman who are of course paying all their bills and taxes whilst trying to support families. Is it any wonder that the rates for marriage, and the resulting family stability, have plummeted amongst the working class ? I would be interested to if you have any knowledge of those pressures amongst your flock ? We must always avoid being superficial or parochial when we grapple with those most complex economic, social and moral questions, as we need to think both deeply and comprehensively before arriving at a position. I am sure you would agree.

      • Royinsouthwest

        I sympathise with both you and your near namesake in your worries about your mothers. I think there are big regional variations in the ease or difficulty in recruiting British staff. Presumably wage levels and the extent of other opportunities explain some of not all of this variation.

        • David

          Thank you, although care is far better than it has even been.
          Regional variations – exactly. The key to achieving a full understanding many things has, at least, an economic component.

  • Albert

    How many people posting here against the Pope’s remarks have actually read the document they are talking about?

    • Paolo Pagliaro

      I have, and I am Catholic. Terrible document, pure socialist utopia.

    • James60498 .

      The Pope knows exactly how he will be translated in the Press. Of if he doesn’t then he really is stupid.

      Much of what he writes is clearly meant with double meaning. Write what can be shown to look Catholic and decent knowing full well that the Press which is where most Catholics will get their instruction from will turn it into anti-Christian, anti-Western propaganda.

      The evidence is available in many many Churches throughout my area if not the world.

      • Albert

        I think it is difficult to know what this pope really thinks much of the time! In the meantime, did you see this post from naughty Fr Hunwicke:

        http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/a-problem.html

        • James60498 .

          You may be right. It’s possible that even he doesn’t know what he thinks.

          I shall keep an eye on Fr Hunwicke in future.

  • len

    I would have though that the rights of the families who’s sons and daughters have fought in recent and past wars to preserve the very liberties (which our politicians are throwing away) would have first say in any discussion on’ rights’.

    • Albert

      Interestingly, as I first read this, I thought you were referring to the enormous number of colonial troops who fought in the World Wars for this country and our liberties.

      • len

        Did you read what I posted?

        • Albert

          Perhaps that is what you meant! Is it?

      • Royinsouthwest

        Those colonial troops deserve enormous credit but that does not alter the fact that national security is threatened by immigrants with little loyalty to the country where they live.

        • bluedog

          They come to the West as a matter of convenience and not out of any conviction in the virtues of Western values.

  • len

    ‘ Is the man stark raving mad? One wonders.’
    Well,If I dressed like the pope and made ‘infallible pronouncements I think i might be viewed with a little suspicion?.

    • Albert

      You certainly would, Len, you certainly would. Part of the reason for the suspicion would be your failure to compare like with like.

  • A Berean

    “Pope Francis says the rights of migrants trump the security of nations.” But what if the security of nations is directly threatened by those very same migrants? Many if not all of those nations that have accepted migrants now have “no go” areas where it’s known to be dangerous for anyone to go to except for these immigrants and heavily armed police. The pope, in pontificating this to the nations, has in effect said that their national security is of no concern to him. This is not something one would or should expect from a pope but with the current office holder the unexpected is now what everyone should expect.
    Aren’t our rights secured and more or less guaranteed by any nation with clearly defined borders, a stable political system and a law abiding citizenry? Toss into that equation anyone (migrants?) who couldn’t care less about such things and you’ll see how fast and how far such communities can and do degenerate as they have with such large migrant populations.

    • Inspector General

      He’s not a very good pope. Not even adequate. Still, we do have a choice of two these days, so lets all weigh in on Benedict’s side…

      • Royinsouthwest

        I am not a Catholic but I think he is humble and well-meaning. However I cannot think of much else to say in his favour.

        • James60498 .

          He is well meaning to those who agree with him.

          As for humble. Nope.

    • Royinsouthwest

      National security is of no concern to anyone with politically correct views. Of course, such people are usually careful to chose realatively safe areas in which to live.

  • Linus

    La Proudie is clearly one of those against whom we were warned by the Greek Unorthodox St. Giorgios Potheadios.

    His very words were:

    “And you scream from behind your door. Say what’s mine is mine and not yours.
    I may have too much but I’ll take my chances, ’cause [Sky Pixie]’s stopped keeping score. And you cling to the things they sold you. Did you cover your eyes when they told you that he can’t come back ’cause he has no children to come back for?”

    It’s selfish and self-righteous hypocrites like La Proudie who trace the true limits of Pixtian faith for us all to see. This is the real meaning of “love thy neighbour”. Tolerate him until he starts making real demands on your time and money, then tell him to piss off back home because your Pixtian charity is nothing more than “a coat you wear twice a year”, which is another quote from St Giorgios P., a true Pixtian seer if ever there was one. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to call him a true seer of Pixtians…

    • Inspector General

      On a brighter note, there’s much mascara running in the US Armed Forces of late. Trump has re-instated the ban on psychotics of a tranny nature serving, and has given the branches involved six months to clear them out. Which is rather generous, don’t you think?

    • Royinsouthwest

      Any apology yet for your offensive remarks about Happy Jack’s health problems?

      • Albert

        What are Happy Jack’s health problems?

        • Cressida de Nova

          Jack has problems resulting from his radiation therapy and also is having surgery for an aortic aneurysm. He is taking time off to spend with his family and prepare for his op. A lot have sent prayers and good wishes (see last post) which I have conveyed to him. I will be informed of his progress so I will keep everyone posted. Meanwhile Albert, you must man the helm, keep your sabre sharpened and keep your wits about you:)

          • bluedog

            Cutlass, Cressida, cutlass. If Albert is to become a sea-dog he will not be wielding a sabre to repel us Protestant boarders. Anyway, wishing Jack all the very best for a speedy recovery from his impending op. It’s quiet without him.

          • Albert

            Thank you so much Cressida for setting this out for me. I am really sorry to hear it, and will keep him in my prayers. If you can pass on my good wishes, and tell him I miss him down here, I would appreciate it, please.

        • Royinsouthwest

          They were mentioned in the comments in the previous essay by Cranmer. I think he is having surgery. I can’t check very easily as I am waiting for a train.

          • Albert

            Thank you

    • Paolo Pagliaro

      Well, Linus
      Write your home address on the walls: the we will know where to send the next bunch of Somali migrantes, with their extended families. Or do you want to tell them to piss off back when they make real demands on your time and money?

  • Father David

    Sad to see but from your latest epistle it would seem that the Ecumenical Movement has yet to reach Barchester.

    • Inspector General

      It is said in Birmingham that some form of inter ethnic trouble is brewing, and it’s only a matter of time before the lid comes flying off. Two possibilities. Rival muslim camps, or Islam and the blacks. That’s all ones been told. There seems to be a news embargo on the problem.

      • Royinsouthwest

        I hope there is no trouble of any kind but if there is, human nature being what it is, it will not be new. Nearly 40 years ago I had a friend, who I lost touch with, who was born in Pakistan and brought up in Birmingham.

        He was very strong but only had one functioning lung because when he was a teenager he was stabbed in his back with a knife in a gang fight between West Indians and Pakistanis.

        He told me that such gang fights were not unusual in the 1970s, even though they received very little attention in the national press.

        • Inspector General

          Something of a rum nature is happening there and the conspiracy of silence about it is deafening…

          Some years ago, a Birmingham councillor contacted a local paper to complain about the lack of news coverage regarding gun shots at night, which can now be heard 7 out of 7. He was told that if it happens daily it’s hardly news!

      • Father David

        Can’t see what this has to do with the Ecumenical Movement?
        I believe that you are missing an apostrophe in “ones” – old chap!

        • Inspector General

          One suspects you are a crafty so and so, so your name goes into the book.

          Good day to you, sir.

          • Father David

            “tHe Book of Life”, one hopes?

          • Inspector General

            Now that’s two entries you get.

          • Father David

            What do I have to do to earn a Hat Trick?

  • Anton

    I thank God that the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.

    • CliveM

      Outside of the Vatican isn’t that true of everywhere?

      • Anton

        Yes, but it is also one of the 39 Articles of the Church of England.

        I often wonder why God did not permit Henry VIII to have a son with Catherine of Aragon who outlived him.

    • Albert

      The Bishop of Rome hath full, ordinary jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ. No English monarch can change that.

      • Anton

        O hath he?

        • Albert

          Yes.

          • bluedog

            Pope Francis must surely be the anti-Pope. Any pope who urges his communicants to allow themselves to be eclipsed by Islam is a complete fool. What if Gregory or Urban had said the same? Where would we be now?

          • Anton

            Of course there is no precedent for the Pope to be a complete fool.

          • Albert

            Where exactly has he said that?

          • bluedog

            Nowhere. And of course he won’t say it. But the practical implications of Pope Francis’ urgings to open the borders of Europe to what will prove to be a mass migration of Muslims are clear to the European people, if not to Francis and yourself. Only a complete fool can make policy that leads to the potential demise of his own enterprise, which in this case is Western Christianity.

          • Albert

            Okay, so he’s a fool rather than wicked. But then has he even said what you say he’s said:

            But the practical implications of Pope Francis’ urgings to open the borders of Europe

            Did you read the document itself?

          • bluedog

            Yes.

          • Albert

            Where did he say that Europe should open its borders? Perhaps he did, but it seems to me he is saying something else.

          • bluedog

            He doesn’t put in those terms specifically, but by implication that will be the result of his bull (?) of January this year. Francis says, ‘In this regard, I wish to reaffirm that “our shared response may be articulated by four verbs: to welcome, to protect, to promote and to integrate”.’

            Now if an authoritative European figure like the Pope talks of ‘welcoming’ illegal immigrants, it is tantamount to granting them a permit, and in this context, the permit is to enter Europe. Francis goes on to mention ‘promote’. What is this if not encouragement? And as for the pathetically naive injunction to ‘integrate’, what planet does Frank live on? Since when did illiterate Muslims from sub-Saharan Africa ever integrate into European society? Most of them are unemployable and will remain so until death. In short, Francis is making provocative remarks that are grossly unfair to the native Europeans and to the illegal immigrants alike.

            He’s really just a South American marxist who hates the gringo. Unlikely to see the distance, the Italian cardinals will dispose of him. We could launch a revised edition of Cluedo on Frank’s fate.

          • Albert

            He doesn’t put in those terms specifically, but by implication that will be the result of his bull (?)

            It’s obviously not a bull.

            Now if an authoritative European figure like the Pope talks of ‘welcoming’ illegal immigrants

            Where does he say that?

            Francis goes on to mention ‘promote’. What is this if not encouragement?

            It quite easy to see that it could mean something different from that. Why not look at what he says it means:

            Promoting essentially means a determined effort to ensure that all migrants and refugees – as well as the communities which welcome them – are empowered to achieve their potential as human beings, in all the dimensions which constitute the humanity intended by the Creator

            He’s talking about people who have already arrived. And what’s wrong with ensuring their dignity and that they get to contribute according to the human dignity and for the good of the new community?

            And as for the pathetically naive injunction to ‘integrate’, what planet does Frank live on? Since when did illiterate Muslims from sub-Saharan Africa ever integrate into European society?

            So because some Muslims won’t integrate, therefore it is wrong to ask that efforts be made to ensure those immigrants that can integrate, do?

            This was not exactly your best post was it bluedog?

          • bluedog

            Start with the premise that people smuggling is a business that intentionally creates illegal immigrants who are branded as asylum seekers. Branding the illegal immigrants ‘asylum seekers’ is a master-stroke in terms of persuading gullible Western opinion leaders that there is a moral case to accept illegal immigrants. The illegality is neatly cancelled by the emotive term ‘asylum seeker’. Denying an asylum seeker a welcome, or failing to protect them (at the expense of the native population), promoting them (again at the expense of the native population) instigates a guilt trip of mammoth degree.

            What Francis is doing in his migrant package is creating obligations for the European populations to discharge while feeling morally superior. It stinks. He’s turning morality on its head and denying any obligation to protect and promote his own flock. It is the European population which is already reeling from the existing level of Muslim immigration and doesn’t want more. If the head of the Catholic Church is now perceived to be urging even more Muslim immigration, one can predict that the Church’s credibility will be further strained, beyond existing issues. In Italy one has long heard that the Calabrese are getting very restive, and can presume that sentiment would be similar in Sicily. If the authorities won’t stop illegal African immigration, one can imagine that Italian fishermen will.

            There’s an excellent article by Janet Daly, in the ST which describes the disconnect between the Western elites and the Western electorates. Worth a read in the context of the Pope’s position on immigration.

          • Albert

            I find your post odd. You made a few claims in the previous post, and I asked for the evidence from his message that he had said (or indeed meant) such things. I also pointed out the evidence that you were misinterpreting him. Now, very oddly, rather than defend your position by providing evidence, you just carry on as if it is established. You say this:

            Start with the premise that people smuggling is a business that intentionally creates illegal immigrants who are branded as asylum seekers. Branding the illegal immigrants ‘asylum seekers’ is a master-stroke in terms of persuading gullible Western opinion leaders that there is a moral case to accept illegal immigrants.

            But where does he do this? Throughout the message he speak of Migrants, asylum seekers and refugees , i.e. he distinguishes them. The only mention of illegality, is when he speaks the illegality of people smuggling.

            Now conflating migrants and asylum seekers is clearly wrong, but the fact that this can be done, does not mean that there are no genuine asylum seekers.

            What Francis is doing in his migrant package is creating obligations for the European populations to discharge while feeling morally superior. It stinks. He’s turning morality on its head and denying any obligation to protect and promote his own flock.

            Again, I ask, simply as a matter of justice where does he do this? Take the word “protect”. What Francis actually says is:

            protecting – may be understood as a series of steps intended to defend the rights and dignity of migrants and refugees, independent of their legal status.

            Now the key word here is “rights” because rights are universal. Accordingly, he cannot be denying the rights of the locals. He then does on to say:

            Such protection begins in the country of origin, and consists in offering reliable and verified information before departure, and in providing safety from illegal recruitment practices.

            Now if that is properly followed, then migrants cannot possibly be bogus asylum seekers or illegal immigrants. He continues

            This must be ongoing, as far as possible, in the country of migration, guaranteeing them adequate consular assistance, the right to personally retain their identity documents at all times, fair access to justice, the possibility of opening a personal bank account, and a minimum sufficient to live on.

            Now what is there in that sentence to disagree with? You want them not to have consular assistance? What’s your beef with immigrants opening a personal bank account? Stop the Islamization of Europe, prevent Christian Migrants from Sri Lanka from opening bank accounts.

            There’s an excellent article by Janet Daly, in the ST which describes the disconnect between the Western elites and the Western electorates. Worth a read in the context of the Pope’s position on immigration.

            Annoyingly, the ST puts people like Janet Daly behind a paywall, so I cannot read the article. But you write of “the context of the Pope’s position on immigration,” when all the evidence is that you are not discussing the Pope’s position on immigration. Let’s work out what he’s saying and then we can discuss it.

            All this stuff about Islam just shows how enclosed Protestants are. If you were a Catholic, you would see just from the people in the pews about you, that many of the immigrants – even the brown skinned ones, are Christians. Perhaps you should have a look at the parable of the sheep and the goats again.

          • bluedog

            Please take a look at the heading of Mrs Proudie’s portrait of the week and go so far as to read her article. What my own posts say hardly differs. What astounds is that the Pope is seemingly giving instructions, which you dutifully detail, in steps European governments should take to facilitate third world immigration to Europe. This immigration is now destroying the social cohesion of Europe and setting up the pre-conditions of civil revolt, if not civil war. Has any Pope previously offered this advice on facilitating third world immigration? If not, why does Francis feel that he should offer this advice? What will Pope Francis say if civil violence breaks out in Europe in response to repeated Islamic terror, sourced as it so frequently is from recent Muslim immigrants?

            It’s a pity you seem inhibited by pay-walls. If you were not you would have wider access to informed opinion and would be aware of the complete incredulity and anger with which the Pope’s gratuitous advice has been greeted.

            It’s risible to accuse me of Protestant enclosure when by your own admission you are limited in your access to current thinking.

          • Albert

            Please take a look at the heading of Mrs Proudie’s portrait of the week and go so far as to read her article. What my own posts say hardly differs.

            Yes, but it is that interpretation that I am questioning.

            If not, why does Francis feel that he should offer this advice?

            I don’t think you’ve understood his advice at all. As far as I can see he is simply saying that we need to treat all people with the dignity that their humanity deserves – even the alien in our land. I find it odd that that is so controversial.

            It’s risible to accuse me of Protestant enclosure when by your own admission you are limited in your access to current thinking.

            What is so telling is that you think having access to the Telegraph alone guarantees access to current thinking.

          • bluedog

            ‘What is so telling is that you think having access to the Telegraph alone guarantees access to current thinking.’

            Your spin. Not even nearly the fact.

            In any event, one is shocked to learn that you do not subscribe to the DT, given the Barclay brothers aggressively pro-Catholic stance on just about everything. Get with the programme!

          • Albert

            Your spin. Not even nearly the fact.

            What precisely is it then, that you mean by this:

            by your own admission you are limited in your access to current thinking

            But I still note the sheer absence of evidence from the actual words of Pope Francis.

          • Merchantman

            Surely as Christians we are obliged to welcome strangers because they may be Gods emissaries or indeed Christ in his second coming or just ordinary travellers hungry and seeking shelter. However these later people usually pass through and when their home country is safe return whence they came.
            (I see the Syrian refugees as being a different case from the Sub-Saharan African surge).
            As regards Francis there is ample evidence he is a destabilising influence.
            In my line of business I meet people from all over the world and welcome them without prejudice. Recently however I have learned to be very cautious indeed of North Africans and Argentinians!

          • Albert

            As regards Francis there is ample evidence he is a destabilising influence.

            That may well be true, but the question is whether he has said what people are saying he has said. If he has said it, it is curious how hard it is to get anyone to provide evidence.

          • bluedog

            Albert, there is so much that is wrong with this particular Bull that there aren’t enough hours in the day adequately to respond. Here’s one gem of utter folly: ‘For the sake of the fundamental dignity of every human person, we must strive to find alternative solutions to detention for those who enter a country without authorisation.’

            Where to begin? A sovereign nation has defined borders within which certain privileges and rights are enjoyed by its citizens. It is widely understood that you can’t run a welfare state with open borders. It is dimly understood that if illegal immigrants invade, seek and are granted welfare benefits such as social housing and income support, those citizens paying taxes will revolt. Here we have the Pope demanding that illegal immigrants, who have broken the law, are granted privileges that accord with their dignity. I mean really. They’re lucky not to have been shot getting off the lorry at the border or on the beach where they landed.

            This kind of talk from an authoritative figure simply validates the claims of people smuggling entrepreneurs that Europe welcomes illegal immigrants. As the people smuggling entrepreneurs are interested in the highest return at the lowest cost, the means of transport they offer are neither luxurious nor safe. Thousands of lives have been lost at sea, crossing the Med. Thanks to the idiot Francis, even more lives will now be lost. That’s what your Pope’s words will entail. Of course, by justifying Francis’ actions you are guilty by association. One is glad one doesn’t have to live with your conscience, Albert!

          • Albert

            Here we have the Pope demanding that illegal immigrants, who have broken the law, are granted privileges that accord with their dignity.

            Just a moment, all he asks is that we try to find a better solution. That does not mean he holds that detention is not the best solution at the moment. A better solution, to my mind is to turn people around and send them back.

            You comment again on illegal trafficking, but he clearly opposes this.

          • bluedog

            ‘A better solution, to my mind is to turn people around and send them back.’ Bravo! We can agree on something. It is absolutely essential to destroy the business of the people smugglers by ensuring that their clientele are disillusioned by non-performance. By the same token, even if illegals do land, they must not be granted any form of freedom or benefits within their host country because this once again validates the claims of the people smuggling entrepreneurs. It’s a question of following the logic of dissuasion with tenacity. The Pope is failing this logical sequence by saying he’s against illegals but give them a break when they reach their destination. It follows that Francis either doesn’t mean what he says when he claims to be against illegal immigration, or more likely, he hasn’t and possibly cannot think things through. Benedict he ain’t.

          • Better still to deduct foreign aid amounts for each migrant launching from the recipient country. The Mediterranean will clear within a fortnight and the only ones complaining will be the blacktip and mako sharks.

          • bluedog

            Cutting foreign aid will slash the bonuses of the Swiss private bankers whose business depends on re-cycled foreign aid. How can you be so cruel?

          • carl jacobs

            He’s Canadian. He’s incapable of being cruel. Don’t listen to all that blather about shooting Care Bears. He’d tear up if he ever saw one in his sight picture.

          • Albert

            Bravo! We can agree on something. It is absolutely essential to destroy the business of the people smugglers by ensuring that their clientele are disillusioned by non-performance.

            So what part of the Pope’s message indicated wanted to support the people smugglers?

            By the same token, even if illegals do land, they must not be granted any form of freedom or benefits within their host country because this once again validates the claims of the people smuggling entrepreneurs.

            Ditto

            The Pope is failing this logical sequence by saying he’s against illegals but give them a break when they reach their destination.

            But where does he say this? Perhaps he does – I’ve read so much on this I am beginning to lose track of what he says and what people say he says!

            Benedict he ain’t.

            I think we can agree on that too! 🙂

          • bluedog

            You ask, ‘But where does he say this?’

            I can help: ‘For the sake of the fundamental dignity of every human person, we must strive to find alternative solutions to detention for those who enter a country without authorisation.[6]’

            A sentence that both recognises illegal immigration yet claims ‘fundamental dignity’ as justification for non-custodial treatment of illegal immigrants. It follows that if illegals are released into the community they immediately acquire what will be qualified citizenship rights that are likely to include accomodation and income support. This hands victory to the people smugglers. Well done, Frank.

          • Albert

            I thought I answered this point. He asks us to find alternative solutions. I.e. we don’t have them yet. Here are some alternative solutions: turn them around and send them home. Change their environment at home so they don’t have to come.

            Why must you always assume the worst?

          • bluedog

            I don’t see any other possible interpretation of what Francis says in this sentence.

          • Albert

            And the alternatives I have given are ruled out because…?

          • bluedog

            Your alternatives are not mentioned in Francis’ ‘Message’. There is no suggestion that migrants of any stripe should be rejected at any point in their journey. He does briefly allude to ‘return’, but makes no comment as to changing the environment at the country of origin (home).

            ‘This solidarity must be concretely expressed at every stage of the migratory experience – from departure through journey to arrival and return.’

            One can agree with your alternative suggestions, but the absence of any reference to them in the ‘Message’ indicates that your ideas are not shared by your Pope. He speaks only of an obligation to facilitate the resettlement of migrants. He is silent on the source of these settlers but we know who they are.

            There is a remarkable irony in this whole migratory exercise. The migrants are mostly leaving countries that were formerly a part of some European empire or other. Of course, nationalist freedom fighters in most cases threw the Europeans out, since when the ordered society created by the Europeans has collapsed into corruption, civil war and decay. Local elites have simply imposed themselves in the place of the European colonial administrations. Now the masses see Europe itself as their salvation!

          • Albert

            One can agree with your alternative suggestions, but the absence of any reference to them in the ‘Message’ indicates that your ideas are not shared by your Pope.

            The absence of your suggestion means it is not shared by the Pope. It’s pretty obvious why the document is not a more balanced one (i.e. making the kinds of suggestions I have made). People are already paranoid about refugees, so the point doesn’t need to be made. If it had been the papers would have picked up on that one line.

          • bluedog

            Encouraging to read your description of Francis’ Message as being ‘unbalanced’. One is tempted to suggestion that term is a reasonable description of Francis himself. Or is he just too thick to express himself with clarity? If so, the College of Cardinals must be desperately short of executive talent.

          • Albert

            Look, I’m no particular fan of this Pope, but I do think he should be defended when he is misrepresented. Here he has not said the things he is accused of meaning, and it is likely that he does not mean them. There is good reason to understand why he has not produced a more balanced document. It is uncharitable to ignore that.

          • bluedog

            There’s no misrepresentation, and it’s a misrepresentation to suggest that there is. A large number of people, Mrs Proudie and self included, have read the ‘Message’ and got the message by a process of reasoned deduction. It’s a matter of judgement. It should not be necessary for you to defend your Pope by saying, ‘There is good reason to understand why he has not produced a more balanced document. It is uncharitable to ignore that.’ If a very senior figure shies away from the truth, which is what you seem to imply (I’m waiting for your denial) , his credibility is fatally compromised. No amount of charity can hide that. This is not the right moment in history for the Catholic Church to be in the hands of a third rater. A coup would not surprise, although of course Frank’s retirement will be due to ‘ill-health’.

          • Albert

            A large number of people, Mrs Proudie and self included, have read the ‘Message’ and got the message by a process of reasoned deduction. It’s a matter of judgement.

            If it is a matter of judgement it is not a matter deduction. You have made inferences. Often these are based on arguments like this “I can think of no alternative explanation of his words than X. Therfefore, there is no alternative explanation of his words than X”. I have shown that to be false.

            If a very senior figure shies away from the truth, which is what you seem to imply (I’m waiting for your denial) , his credibility is fatally compromised.

            It’s not shying away from the truth, it’s just that he understands the teaching of Jesus to be wise as serpents and innocence as doves. Consider this passage in the light of your words:

            Jesus said, “Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.”
            So saying, he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.

          • bluedog

            ‘If it is a matter of judgement it is not a matter deduction.’ Wrong. The two are not incompatible at all.

            ‘I have shown that to be false.’ In your own mind alone. You put up a couple of straw men which you have now apparently persuaded yourself are fact.

            Consider this passage in the light of your words: Matthew 5:37

          • Albert

            Deduction follows of logical necessity. You were making a judgement where there was no logical necessity.

            In your own mind alone. You put up a couple of straw men which you have now apparently persuaded yourself are fact.

            No. You said there was no alternative and I gave you two alternatives. I don’t know if they are what Francis has in mind, but they are alternatives, and your claim was false.

            Matthew 5:37: are you saying that Jesus lied?

          • bluedog

            Wrong again! At the end of a process of deduction you can be left with a number of possible outcomes. You use judgement to decide which path to follow.

            I said there was no alternative in the context of Frank’s message. My claim is not false.

            ‘are you saying that Jesus lied?’ That’s a question for you to answer.

          • Albert

            Wrong again! At the end of a process of deduction you can be left with a number of possible outcomes. You use judgement to decide which path to follow.

            No. That’s induction.

            I said there was no alternative in the context of Frank’s message. My claim is not false.

            But you also say this is a matter of your judgement. Now if it is not a matter of logical necessity and rests on your judgement, how can it be that your claim is anything other than false?

          • bluedog

            Give it a break, Albert. You’re arguing for the sake of argument. You’ve gone well beyond the point of being constructive. Find somebody else with whom to engage in an exercise in futility.

          • Albert

            No I’m not. You have made claims you cannot defend.

          • bluedog

            Albert, it’s a real surprise to find you obsessing about this thread so much. My position is based on my judgement of a remark made by your Pope. You disagree with my judgement. Your position is based on two ideas of yours which your Pope has not mentioned at all, but which you would like me to believe are what he has in mind. I don’t understand why I should believe your proposition. So we have different opinions and that’s where the matter ends.

          • Albert

            Your position is based on two ideas of yours which your Pope has not mentioned at all

            No it isn’t. My position is based on the fact that you made a claim that is demonstrably false. My two ideas are merely illustrations of that fact. It matters not at all, whether or not the Pope has those ideas in mind. What matters is that he has not said, and we have no reason to believe he meant, what you say.

          • bluedog

            Once again we can’t agree. The ideas that you put forward were validated by your scriptural position of ‘serpents and doves’. But this doesn’t alter the fact that your two ideas were never put forward by the Pope. So what’s the point of your continued attempt to declare my position false? It’s nothing of the sort, and the idea that disagreement represents a false proposition is patently absurd.

          • Albert

            You made a claim which said the only interpretation of his words is X. I merely pointed out that that was not true, as a matter of logic, and gave two alternative scenarios as illustrative of that. Therefore your position is false, and it is patently absurd for you to continue to defend it, especially if you wish to do so by saying “Yes, but Pope Francis did not mention your ideas.” That’s not the point. He asks us to come up with ideas, and the fact that it is possible to come up with ideas other than your one, shows your claim is not just false, but falsified.

            I’m surprised you’re carrying on, really.

          • bluedog

            Well, Albert, it’s you who resurrected the thread on your Pope’s dismal foray into immigration politics after it had lain dormant for a week. Now one can understand that a Saturday night alone in an ivory tower could be soul-destroying. But were there no other options open to you?

            ‘I’m surprised you’re carrying on, really.’ Snap!

          • Albert

            Well, Albert, it’s you who resurrected the thread on your Pope’s dismal foray into immigration politics after it had lain dormant for a week.

            No I didn’t and I think it is disappointing you’ve decided to make it personal. You made a claim which is demonstrably false. End of.

          • bluedog

            Check the thread log carefully, Albert. Then reflect on the old saw, ‘Let sleeping dogs lie’.

          • Albert

            When you can prove your claim, then I will accept the dog is asleep.

          • James60498 .

            I don’t know about the Barclay brothers.

            But the Telegraph itself is VERY pro-gay. In fact I have in occasions referred to it as the “Telegay”.

            It has some very feminist articles that make me want to be sick and whilst it has some writers who are pro-life it has as many who are very pro-abortion.

            Not anything I would regard as a Catholic at all.

          • Anton

            Yes, I wonder what Francis will say if St Peters takes a hit from Islamic terrorists. It is surely a target.

          • Albert

            Where’s the bit where he says we should let in Islamic terrorists?

          • James60498 .

            The Bishop of Strasbourg has said that he has been told by Muslims that “one day all of this will be ours”

            I have a friend, a recently retired lawyer in a town in the NW of the UK who has been told exactly the same thing.

            The Muslims involved here are not the violent terrorist type. They are in the second case at least people who are prepared to use white Catholics as their lawyer in their legal businesses.

            They are not threatening us. They are stating what they see as fact. And there are very many places in Europe where that is very easy to believe.

            The college that I mentioned in another connection this morning is still nominally at least a Catholic college. My son goes there now. And even though there is another college for the same (16-18 ) age group just 10 minutes walk away 1/3 of those at his college now are Muslims. There is a Cof E Primary School just around the corner where there is probably less than 10% white.

            And yet this town is not even regarded as even one of the more Muslim towns in the region.

          • Manfarang

            I knew a few English converts to Islam, some of them because they had married Muslims. In the Gulf states many British expats start going to church. Some Muslims may think all the world will become Muslim. It won’t

          • James60498 .

            I am sure you are right.

            But that doesn’t mean that certain countries won’t or parts of countries.

            And some of them may be closer to home than most people expect.

          • Anton

            Thankfully I am not in a courtroom where I have to answer only closed questions. As you well know and as such a well-advised man must know he simply lumps migrants with refugees, says refugees should be let in, takes no account of illegal immigration aka queue-jumping, and ignores the fact that many of the perpetrators of recent atrocities in Europe are illegal migrants. The consequence of that concatenation is unrestricted entry of terrorists, is it not?

          • Albert

            Sorry, where does he do this?

          • Anton

            Read it! Throughout it he does the four things which I state he does.

          • Albert

            I have set out (above or below) a pretty long account of why I do not think this is what he is saying, indeed, to my mind, cannot be what he is saying. Would you kindly quote the letter to show that he means what you say he means?

          • Anton

            I’m not going round the garden path. Anybody can read it at

            https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/migration/documents/papa-francesco_20170815_world-migrants-day-2018.html

            and verify for themselves that he lumps migrants with refugees, says refugees should be let in, takes no account of illegal immigration aka queue-jumping, and ignores the fact that many of the perpetrators of recent atrocities in Europe are illegal migrants.

            The consequence of that concatenation is unrestricted entry of terrorists.

          • Albert

            Of course you’re not going to quote it, because you can see full well, how I will respond, and show that the meaning need not be, and perhaps can’t be what you say it says. I have dealt with the problem of illegality already. Where does he call for unrestricted entry?

          • Anton

            As I have said multiple times, he calls for unrestricted entry of refugees and he always categorises migrants and refugees together.

          • Albert

            he always categorises migrants and refugees together.

            Obviously, he doesn’t because if he did, you would be quoting the line where he calls for unrestricted entry of refugees and migrants.

          • Anton

            He nowhere calls for restricted entry of either, does he?

          • Albert

            I explained this already.

          • bluedog

            Indeed. Most Islamic terror groups announce as their objective the seizure of Rome. Francis is giving them the opportunity to succeed.

          • Merchantman

            How much longer will you continue defying the truth? Francis has gone Rogue. In my opinion he is the Multi Faith Globalist Candidate and in Error.
            But that’s what one has come to expect in these perilous and delusional times.

          • Albert

            All of that may well be true, but what I am asking for is the evidence that he has said here what he is accused of having said. Is that so much to ask?

          • Merchantman

            The probability is Ratzinger was replaced in a Globalist coup for speaking the truth about Islam in a sober and restrained way. Since then all Hell has been let loose as Prophesied. The Catholic Church should get on its knees and repent for the mistake it has made.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            I really think that you, and probably His Holiness himself, ought to read a bit of Chesterton.

            If you follow this link to a chapter in The New Jerusalem, and then do a highlighted search for the string “equality of”, you will see what you need to know in the present context.

          • Albert

            What I am trying to get at, is whether the Pope has actually said what people here say he has. I keep asking for the evidence, and the silence keeps assuring me that he hasn’t.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Why don’t you assist us by doing the search yourself?

          • Albert

            I read the document. Those making the claims, seem not to have done.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            If you were really concerned about the reputation and honour of Pope Francis, you would (if possible) have provided a link to the document, or at least an authoritative rendering.

            As it is, you just seem to be playing “Snooty Pants” (differs from “Smarty Pants” in that you appear to be seeking an occasion to look down your nose.)

          • Albert

            There is no need to provide a link because (i) someone else already had, and (ii) if I can google it so can everyone else. But since you ask:

            https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/migration/documents/papa-francesco_20170815_world-migrants-day-2018.html#_ftn2

            in that you appear to be seeking an occasion to look down your nose

            No that is what others are doing. They accuse him of saying something he hasn’t said. Why? So they can look down their noses at him.

          • Anna
          • Anton

            You surely meant to write “Yea verily”?

        • len

          Verily, he hath not.

      • len

        The Pope can claim what he wants but has no authority over anyone other than those foolish enough to submit their God given freedom to him.

        • Albert

          Whether he does or he doesn’t isn’t really down to an individual to assert. It comes down to whether Catholicism is true. I see you don’t think it is. But if it is, then he has authority over the entire Church.

          • Anton

            It isn’t up to you to assert either, then.

          • Albert

            What I’m saying is that its truth does not depend on individual assertion, but on what Christ has promised. It certainly does not depend on the assertions of psychopathic monarchs like Henry VIII.

          • Anton

            You describe him accurately, and it applies to multiple Popes too.

          • Albert

            Which is of course exactly, what Catholics believe.

          • Anton

            But never whoever happens to be Pope at the time of the discussion!

          • Albert

            No, that’s exactly what all Catholics believe, including the pope. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand Catholicism…now there’s a thought.

          • Anton

            What I of course meant was that Catholics typically defend whoever is the current Pope even when he is patently talking rubbish. As the present thread amply demonstrates.

          • James60498 .

            I can point you to a considerable number of websites where Catholics are not defending the rubbish talked frequently by the current Pope.

            Of course you are right that some Catholics will defend two consecutive Popes who say exactly the opposite but that applies in all areas of life. Politics and the CONservative Party being a great example.

          • Albert

            My point would be that what this Pope is saying is so general (insofar as it is about human rights) that it is hard to see what anyone could disagree with. And the more I ask for the offending passages, the more I am met with silence – except the usual carping and misrepresentation.

          • James60498 .

            In this particular situation I will take your word for it that there is nothing that you can directly disagree with. Though of course I still very much maintain that either he or someone in his circle intends that people should understand it in a certain way.

            It is often too difficult to point at what he has said in other situations too.

            However as you well know what you don’t say is often as relevant as what you do.

            I can see that there is a Christian argument for not making Mexico pay to build a wall between it and the US. If the Pope says that this is wrong I am not going to fall out massively with him. He went too far in my view saying that this is an unChristian thing to do but it’s not a major issue to me.

            But what didn’t he say? In a two way contest He completely failed to mention publicly at least that Trump’s opponent Clinton and so-called Catholic Kaine had a 100% approval rating from Planned Parenthood and therefore no accusation of unChristian came their way.

            I am obviously not going to criticise him for sending a message to the Paris March for Life. But on the very same day was the Washington March for Life that the whole world was looking at. Trump sent his best wishes and Mike Pence spoke there. From Pope Francis nothing.

            When he went to the US he started his speeches, I am here in my name and that of the Catholic Church. No mention of Jesus at all in any of his three major speeches. (I read two of them to check as I couldn’t believe what I was reading about him)

            Most people cannot have a view on everything. Politicians who claim to know about everything are the most annoying of all.

            If some people on here are criticising on the basis of what they have read in the Press, he above everyone can’t complain. If you give off the cuff interviews to the Press then you have to accept that some people might get their views from those.

            If I don’t read all of his writings listen to all of his speeches it doesn’t mean I can’t have a view of him.

            Even Jeremy Corbyn gets something right from time to time. Not sure about Justin Trudeau (you are Canadian aren’t you ? If not apologies. Another Catholic who doesn’t seem to upset Pope Francis).

            There are clearly some people on this site who don’t like the Catholic Church full stop. But with one or two exceptions most are reasonable in their criticisms.

            If they criticise Pope Francis then that’s very fair with me.

            Is the Pope a Catholic?

          • Albert

            I think this is the best critique on the this thread. And no, I’m not Canadian.

          • James60498 .

            Apologies.

          • Albert

            No worries – I don’t mind being mistaken for a Canadian.

          • Albert

            I can only assume that the assessment of this Pope has passed you by. My contention here is not that this Pope is wise or right particularly, but that he plainly hasn’t said what people say he has said. And the more I ask for evidence the more there seems to be none.

          • Anton

            But you don’t ask for evidence. You ask transparently loaded questions like Where has he called for terrorists to be let in, while determinedly sticking your head in the sand about his categorising migrants with refugees and his silence about illegal entry. And this is, you must believe, the man with the wisest counsel in the world at his fingertips…

          • Albert

            But you don’t ask for evidence. You ask transparently loaded questions like Where has he called for terrorists to be let in

            That’s because I am responding to what other people have falsely claimed. I am asking for what they have said. Why would you fault me for that? Do you want me to ask for what they have not said?

            while determinedly sticking your head in the sand about his categorising migrants with refugees

            He distinguishes migrants from refugees, but merely points out that all need to be treated with the dignity that human nature requires.

            his silence about illegal entry

            That’s like saying “In Humanae vitae” Paul VI is silent about whether people having sex outside of marriage should use contraception, therefore, he is encouraging it. The reason Francis is silent on that issue is that it is a separate issue, and one that he is not addressing.

            And this is, you must believe, the man with the wisest counsel in the world at his fingertips…

            That is most certainly not what I have to believe.

          • Anton

            Well there we agree!

          • Albert

            I think we probably do. I am not asking for open borders (thank goodness we aren’t in Schengen). I am not asking for terrorists to be let in. I am not asking for people smugglers to be supported. I just think that when people are here, they need to be treated humanely – even if we send them packing. As far as I can see, this is what the Pope is asking for. My quarrel here is with interpretations that effectively say “If the Pope asks for humane treatment, he must be in favour of the Islamization of Europe, or mass terrorism.” I just do not think you can get either of those things out of his message.

          • Anton

            What inhumane treatment has he in mind?

          • Albert

            You can read it for yourself. But it appears to be about human rights etc.

          • Linus

            Law is law, it is not necessarily truth. The law in England confers governance of the Anglican Church on the sovereign. This law was enacted not by the unilateral actions of a “psychopathic monarch”, but rather by the king in parliament – a body which was then (as it still is) the only holder of any kind of legal jurisdiction in England.

            The pope has no jurisdiction over anyone in England, although certain Englishman may choose to abide by his rules. But whatever those rules may be, they do not excuse anyone from the obligation of obeying the civil law. Public obligation takes precedence over private belief. This is how things have always been and there is no reason to believe they will ever change.

            Truth is another matter. If you can establish what you believe to be true to the satisfaction of all then parliament will have little choice but to incorporate that truth into civil law. But you can’t. After hundreds of years you and those who share your beliefs still have not been able to convince the vast majority of the English of the truth of what you say. You’re such poor advocates that fewer and fewer people believe in what you say.

            What does that say about you?

          • Albert

            I was speaking theologically, so your first sentence is just misunderstood.

          • len

            IF the RCC were true God would have mentioned it

          • Albert

            If sola fide and sola scriptura were true, God would have mentioned it.

          • Anton

            It should be fairly obvious that what Christians agree to be the word of God outranks the words of men.

          • Albert

            It ought to be fairly obvious that the question is about whether the word of God is restricted to scripture.

          • Anton

            Of course God sends prophets into local pastoral situations today, but when the early church declared the canon closed its definition of scripture was that which was the word of God for all believers until Christ comes again.

          • Albert

            The Church never closed the canon in such a way as to exclude the word as tradition. To do so would have been absurd, since the canon is itself tradition. The word of God exists in three ways: as the second person of the Trinity, as scripture and as tradition. When it says the word of God is alive and active, it doesn’t mean scripture is alive and active. The word is alive and active in the life of the Church.

          • Anton

            The only thing that matters is absolute truth that all believers need to know. Your distinction between absolute-truth-in-scripture and absolute-truth-in-tradition is arbitrary.

          • Albert

            No it isn’t, because it is one and the same truth – namely, the Word of God, who became incarnate. We can get different things from the different forms. The Word of God appears in a more three-dimensional way in tradition than in scripture, because the Holy Spirit makes present the reality to which scripture may do nothing more than refer.

          • Anton

            Waffle. The Holy Spirit brings to life the written inerrant word of God, but that doesn’t alter the categorisation issue of what words held to be inerrant are “scripture” and what words are “tradition”.

          • Albert

            You are completely incapable of seeing another point of view. And I find the idea that is waffle that the Holy Spirit makes the Word of God = Christ, present in the life of the Church, somewhat blasphemous. The one Word of God can exist in tradition in a different form from what exists in scripture.

          • Anton

            What is waffle is something in your post other than the point you have picked up on. You are completely incapable of seeing another point of view.

          • Albert

            Please quote the bits you think are waffle, because at the moment, what I am getting from you is a serious of sentences the referent of which is unclear. AKA, your posts are waffle.

          • Anton

            I don’t mind if you think that.

          • Albert

            You didn’t think you might actually provide evidence for the claim you made, as I asked you?

          • Merchantman

            The clue is in John 1 v1 !!!

          • Albert

            How is that supposed to work?

          • Merchantman

            see above.

          • Merchantman

            The Word is the basis of creation. Therefore He is preeminent, indestructible and cannot be overidden by human words or deeds. True He can be misinterpreted and by effectively- at best ignoring or diminishing Him the trouble starts. He also debunks Mo’s claims which is handy.

          • Albert

            Sorry is this a defence of sola scriptura? If so, how?

          • Merchantman

            Its the next best thing.

          • Albert

            It’s not a defence at all, ~The issue is not whether God’s word is the best, but whether God’s word is restricted to scripture. John 1.1 if anything can be used more in defence of the Catholic position since it points out that the Word is a person, not merely a text, and this person we are in communion with, since he has sent his Holy Spirit to us:

            “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
            He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
            All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

            Now when you say it is the next best thing, you admit that it isn’t really a defence from scripture. But if sola scriptura cannot itself be defended sola scriptura, how can sola scriptura be true? It excludes itself.

        • Dolphinfish

          In fact, anyone can claim anything. I’ve even heard of people who unilaterally declare themselves “saved”, and incapable of losing that salvation and consequently, incapable of sinning. Crazy, right?

          • Albert

            Superb!

          • len

            I prefer to keep to the scriptures ;
            ‘I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand’. (John 10:28)

            Not hearsay, or RCC doctrines.
            But that’s just me

          • IanCad

            The Sermon on The Mount gives a little more perspective to the Once Saved Always Saved heresy.

          • Anton

            If this is a discussion of Once Saved Always Saved, to whom does “them” refer, and are they not free themselves to leave Christ’s hand?

      • Father David

        Well said, Albert and that coming from the namesake of the consort of the dear old queen who just happens to be Supreme Ruler of the Established Church and Defender of the Faith. Looking forward to seeing the second series of that Victorian soap opera later this evening – post 1662 Evensong, when her gracious majesty will be duly prayer for.

        • Albert

          Well it’s pretty obvious that the monarch cannot have ordinary jurisdiction over the Church.

      • David Trevett

        And: Anglican Orders are Invalid. Take That!

      • Linus

        The English parliament can, or could. And the British parliament inherited that power. In Britain the legislature is the only body that makes or unmakes laws that apply to all. The Church has no jurisdiction over anyone who does not voluntarily agree to be bound by its rules: rules which apply only to those who agree to obey them.

        The only law is civil law. All other laws are purely notional. Or mis-named. The so-called “laws of physics” are not laws, they’re a description of observed reaction to action that we use to predict the results of experiment. “Canon law” is not law. It is a set of rules that regulates the behaviour expected of members of a religious sect. It is not incumbent on any who do not belong to that sect.

        Parliament could raise canon law to the status of civil law, but until it does, none of the provisions of canon law are legally enforceable on anyone who does not choose to be bound by them. Therefore the statement that the bishop of Rome has jurisdiction over the entire Pixtian church is erroneous. He only has jurisdiction over those Pixtian sects that choose to acknowledge his jurisdiction, and even then his authority can be repudiated at any time. For proof of this, look at the Church of England and all the other thousands of Protestant churchuscules, none of whom are bound by Catholic canon law. Look at the Orthodox churches and the various breakaway Catholic groups like the SSPX.

        That’s the reality of jurisdiction: unless it’s based in common agreement and conferred on a person or body commonly recognised, it doesn’t exist. Claiming it for a foreign pope on the basis of unilateral opinion is merely pissing in the wind.

        • Albert

          You’re just a secular fundamentalist. Anyone can see that theologically it makes no sense for the monarch to decide to have full authority over the Church. Now of course, you will deny that theology makes any sense. But in that case, the question of jurisdiction within the Church is hardly an issue for you.

          • Linus

            You’re such a bad liar. First you say you haven’t read beyond the first line of my post, then you respond in a way that proves you’ve read it to the end. No wonder so few are convinced by you. You’re neither honest nor consistent.

          • Albert

            I most certainly did not read it to the end. I read the first line and could see where it was going. You’re so repetitive that one can guess what you’re going to say in any case. you also are without morality, since you are content to make accusations without adequate evidence, as probably most posters here already know.

          • Linus

            Deny away. It’s clear to me that you do read my posts. You wouldn’t get into such a tizz about them if you didn’t.

            Your histrionics betray you. As they betray so many sexually frustrated Catholic priests. Go have a w@nk while you drool over your nearly-naked sky pixie in his S&M pose. That should calm you down.

          • Albert

            I don’t read your posts Linus – at least not usually. The first line is enough to get the basic position. Of course, if you express yourself so offensively as here, then the “@” will jump off the page, so yes, I’ve seen that, but I’ve not looked beyond that. I can see that you are gratuitously offensive. I don’t need to look any further.

          • Linus

            You’re offended? Poor little snowflake. You need to grow a thicker skin, like you expect us to do when you insult our relationships and describe the physical aspect of them as an “abomination” and us as “objectively disordered”.

            It’s clear enough to me that your nearly-naked messiah appeals to you on an erotic level. Be as offended about that as you like. Scweam and scweam until you turn blue for all I care. It won’t change my opinion of you and the base emotions that motivate you. Hatred and lust, that’s all you understand.

          • Albert

            I didn’t say I was offended – I hardly worry about your opinion. I said you were offensive. I.e. you set out to offend. You seem bitter to me.

          • Linus

            I only set out to offend those who offend. Their pixie-given right to offend at will but never be offended in their turn needs to be challenged.

            You do so hate the taste of your own medicine, don’t you?

          • Inspector General

            Relationships!

            The only relationship narcissists like you can undertake is with your own ego…otherwise the gay bathhouses would close down for lack of custom….

          • Linus

            So says the unmarried misanthrope from whom women flee and men recoil.

            What’s your most significant relationship been since the poor woman whose body expelled you took flight and abandoned you to the care of the Sisters of Moorcy, eh?

            I thought so. A riding crop…

          • “Abomination” is an ethical, cultural or religious judgement free individuals are free to make. “Objectively disordered” is a clinical judgement with plenty of empirical merit. Surely your thick skin can handle that, if your thick skull can’t….

          • Linus

            “Abomination” is an insult used to dehumanize. “Objectively disordered” is a false diagnosis used to pathologise. Both terms are intended to reduce gay people to the status of subhuman sickos who need to be “cured” or eradicated.

            Albert belongs to a church that uses these terms to describe us in the same way that Nazis used terms like “verjudet” and “Untermensch”. The aim is to influence others into believing we must be looked down on and treated as a disease that needs to be cured rather than human beings who should be respected.

            I see you’ve fallen for his propaganda hook, line and sinker. So you won’t be protesting the next time Nazis march through some American city demanding that your people should be suppressed, deported or deprived of equal rights. After all, if gays don’t deserve the right to be protected from dismissal just because they’re gay, or the right to marry, or any other right, why do you?

          • In the context of male homosexuality, “abomination” is a classification of a behaviour prohibited by God…the super-pixie, if you will. A secular perspective would suggst that such a prohibition, like the prohibition against cannibalism, was a social engineering directive intended to stop common practices that may be fun or practical, but damage society in the long run.

            Perhaps the “disorder” diagnosis is weak or false, but we’ll never know until the political censorship is lifted. This is what happens when research and debate are stifled; the assumption you don’t like gains ever more validity. Live with that.

            I don’t do marches and protests. And no, I would not call for prohibiting free speech unless it calls for direct and immediate crimes. I will use my free speech to counter arguments against limiting mine…something which the “gay community” hasn’t learned, having drifted into fascism and bombastic triumphalism. You obviously don’t understand that Jewish emancipation is not a gift of a benign government and Johnny-come-lately civil rights activism, but a gift of free speech…the ability of Jews and their sympathizers to attack religious and social laws and mores against them. Everything else followed from that

            You still don’t get the gay “marriage” opposition, do you; no one objects to your calling any personal arrangement with someone of the same sex, or an object if you will, a marriage. What many object to is being compelled to call it, treat and “celebrate” it as such. Marriage is a cultural designation, one which uses laws, not one which you can make real through laws. You have a waxing and waning cultural battle, one which started barely yesterday, and one which you hope is over. But it’s not, no matter how deeply you inscribe it into laws, how much you pump it into kids through compliant school systems or how many bakers you take to court and impoverish for holding to their conscience. Such intimidation is fascism, and fascism only succeeds in shutting people up for a while, but tends to crumble at the first inevitable backlash. And the irony is that while you crow about revenge, about closing the doors on Christians and Jews in your victory fantasies, it will be they who will open theirs and offer help and protection to you when the pendulum swings again and the shit hits the fan. It’s the most embarrassing idiocy you secularist types fall for, this assumption that history is a clean line of an up-up-and-away kind of social liberalism, when the actual empirical evidence for such a possibility is barely a century old.

          • Linus

            There is no real backlash. Just a few disgruntled individuals making a LOT of noise.

            Trump was elected for economic and nationalist rather than social reasons and his inability to govern effectively shows exactly where American social values lie.

            He hasn’t even attempted to repeal equal marriage. He knows he’d lose the fight. The rising generation supports it overwhelmingly and those who don’t are dying off. How much of a backlash can they inflict from beyond the grave?

            This fantasy you have of the pendulum swinging back in your direction was probably shared by slave owners in the South, by opponents of women’s and civil rights and by the enemies of reproductive freedoms. But some changes in society are so profound, there’s no question of any kind of real backlash no matter how much noise the minorities who oppose the changes make. There are some genies that can’t be put back in the bottle. And some who refuse to deal with change they know to be permanent.

            Such are the Neanderthals who post on this site.

          • You know, Linus, for someone who claims to be an atheist, you are quite the firebrand of a fanatic when it comes to your Holy Doctrine of Progress. You also do a lot of praying in the form of repeating the same wishes for the future, as if repetition would touch the heart of your god…who, Gaia, History, Progress? Doesn’t matter; your gods have feet of clay, as the adage goes. You’d have made a formidable and nasty Dominican friar in times gone by. My prayer would be that you never wind up with any power beyond looking after your personal affairs and squawking on the blogs.

            No, we don’t know what the future will bring, but again you make the same mistake in assuming that anyone except for a small minority, wants to take away your precious imaginary “marriage.” No, most just don’t want it shoved in their faces and to be compelled to take your claims seriously or to have their children forced to endure them. That’s easy enough to achieve once everyone tires of these issues, especially since you stupidly made buddies with the rapidly collapsing left and it’s too late to disengage from its dying grip.

          • Linus

            Holy Doctrine of what?

            Holy doctrines are for deluded religionists and other obsessive/compulsives.

            People of sense understand that holy doctrines have nothing to do with how we are goverened. Public order is not linked to supernatural imperatives that quite simply don’t exist, but rather to the consent of the governed.

            Revolutions only happen when the governed withdraw their consent.

            A lot of noise made by a few Pixtian malcontents does not constitute a general withdrawal of consent. Our current system of government and the individual rights we enjoy are therefore under no threat.

            Mass conversions to Pixtianity (or Jupixism, or Pixlam, or whatever) might change the situation, but they’re just not happening.

            Continuity and progress are therefore a done deal unless some catastrophic event causes a mass withdrawal of consent from our current form of government. So keep on praying for Armageddon. It’s the only thing that can swing things your way.

          • PeterKovatchev

            Well then, all’s well, Linus. Why worry? Continuity-and-Progress have heard your cri de l’âme, and will answer it.

          • Linus

            Neither continuity nor progress are sentient beings and can therefore hear nothing, let alone respond to it.

            And as for this imaginary Pixtian construct called the “soul”, it doesn’t exist so it can hardly shriek and wail.

            We have consciousness, and that consciousness can sometimes be troubled by the events of our lives, but an intelligent man won’t start howling at things that can’t hear him, nor understand him if they could, and expect a reply. That would be pure delusion, which is something your lot indulge in. Not mine.

          • Inspector General

            “Go have a w@nk while you drool over your nearly-naked sky pixie in his S&M pose.”

            How very gay man of you. Synod will be impressed at that!

            Something else you will have heard about is the massive NHS monitoring of sexual active promiscuous homosexual men on PrEP. 10,000 souls seeking reckless enjoyment at tax payers expenses. Early reports are horrendous, but what really worries the BBC is how to suppress the terrible news when it breaks. The truth of course is that they can’t!

        • Albert

          And as usual, I’ve not bothered to read beyond the first line.

        • Inspector General

          Linus. Dear Linus. Here’s a story of hope and it’s beautiful. Simply beautiful {sniff}
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          This lesbian couple got divorced so they could ‘please’ God and return to church
          http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/08/27/this-lesbian-couple-got-divorced-so-they-could-please-god-and-return-to-church/
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          • Albert

            There are times when I love your posts, Inspector. Pity these two are Mormons.

          • Linus

            I didn’t click on the link because I never click on any link you post, however I have already seen the story and all I can say is “more fool them”.

            Gay people are not immune to Pixtian brainwashing tactics. But they also are not excused from personal responsibility for their actions. These two Aunt Jemimas have made their choice and will have to live with the consequences. Rather them than me.

          • Inspector General

            “Live with the consequences”

            Now that’s a veiled threat. What do you people have in mind for apostates?

          • Linus

            “In mind”? For Uncle Tom and Aunt Jemima? Absolutely nothing. Some advocate the trial and punishment of traitors. Not me. They’ll have to live with themselves when they realize they’re being used by their Pixtian “friends” for propaganda purposes. And then they’ll have to live with the contempt of the people they’ve betrayed.

            Some believe you can rehabilitate those who sell out their community for personal gain. I don’t agree. Once a turncoat, always a turncoat, and the proper treatment for turncoats is to send them to live in a town called Coventry.

            These women will regret their actions. But they’ll regret them alone. For who would want to befriend them?

          • Inspector General

            They’ve escaped your cult, and as any other cultist would be, you are furious.

            They are Christians first and foremost. They have proved that. They are not coming back to you. Not ever.

          • Linus

            They’ve been brainwashed by your cult. As as for whether they stay in it or leave when they realise they’re treated as subhumans by the other cultists, only time will tell. Most gay people do abandon sky pixie worship when they realise a) that he doesn’t exist and b) that he was invented by homophobes as a means of (among other things) persecuting the LGBT community.

            A few gay people do stay in the Pixtian church however. Sometimes the self-loathing instilled into them by parents who hate them runs too deep and they spend their entire lives groveling to their imaginary deity and begging him to change them. In which case they pay the price of their own stupidity in misery and loneliness. It’s their choice so there isn’t anything anyone can do for them. But if they manage to break free they may find support among others like them.

            Turncoats on the other hand are doomed no matter what they do. They’ll find nothing but misery and pain in the church. And nothing but a cold shoulder from the LGBT community. Who knows what they do when they crash out of their Pixtian cults and find the doors of gay people they knew before slammed in their faces?

            Life is hard and we must all make hard choices. The consequences of those choices must be borne by those who make them. If you spit on your friends, they will not be there to help you when you need it.

          • Inspector General

            And it’s not over yet!

            The more assertive looking of the two is clearly a lesbian, but the doe, she has promise. The church will look to find her a husband, and together they will raise a family. Wouldn’t that be adorable and beautiful! A soul saved from the prospect of lifelong separation from the community. Further proof that yours is a chosen lifestyle you are not born into.

            Never give up on yourself is the hopeful message that will emerge…

          • Linus

            That’s right, yet another perfect Pixtian family broken up when the wife runs off with her “best friend”.

            Pixtian men should take heed. If you don’t want to put your children through the pain of an acrimonious divorce, don’t marry a lesbian.

          • PeterKovatchev

            I’m puzzled, Inspector, as to why they had to “divorce” from a union which in their LDS church isn’t recognized as a marriage anyway. Why not just drift away from the pretend game once they outgrew it…like from their Barbies and My Little Ponies?

          • Inspector General

            Something most untoward here. One’s email ac received this, which does not appear on Cranmer…
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            Visit PeterKovatchev’s profile
            PeterKovatchev

            I’m puzzled, Inspector, as to why they had to “divorce” from a union which in their LDS church isn’t recognized as a marriage anyway. Why not just drift away from the pretend game once they outgrew it…like from their Barbies and My Little Ponies?
            11:56 a.m., Sunday Aug. 27 | Other comments by PeterKovatchev

            Reply to PeterKovatchev
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            And the considered reply is: To really regret an act of foolishness, there’s nothing better than reversing what you did. Turn back the clock in a way. They deserve admiration for that.

          • Hm… “This comment has been deleted by the user and can’t be changed.”

          • Inspector General

            In that case, his will be done, and the reply must go too…

        • Anton

          You know, if you had used “Christian” instead of “Pixtian” then I’d have upticked you for that. And not because of the Reformation but for your logic.

        • IrishNeanderthal

          the so-called “laws of physics” are not laws

          Francis Bacon originated that term:

          For although nothing exists in nature except individual bodies, exhibiting clear individual effects according to particular laws, yet in each branch of learning, that very law, its investigation, discovery, and development, are the foundation both of theory and practice. This law, therefore, and its parallel in each science, is what we understand by the term form, adopting that word because it has grown into common use, and is of familiar occurrence.

          Novum Organum, Book II, 2

          From which it appears that he was actually plugging the word “form”, but “law” snuck in and entered the language in that meaning.

  • CliveM

    It might not be generally accepted but we have high rates of employment and our unemployment is the lowest it’s been for decades. We need migrants. An uncomfortably large nu Of the current native unemployed are unemployable. Even If you stripped them of all benefit most employers wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole.

    That said there are migrants we don’t want and we must have the right to block them from entering and kick them out if they get in.

    • dannybhoy

      Therre were 883,000 people (not seasonally adjusted) in employment on “zero-hours contracts” in their main job, 20,000 fewer than for a year earlier.
      There were 8.77 million people aged from 16 to 64 who were economically inactive (not working and not seeking or available to work), 64,000 fewer than for January to March 2017 and 90,000 fewer than for a year earlier.

      The thing is that younger people coming into the UK for work results in more Brits being sidelined and ending up on long term benefits. It also means zero hours contracts remain the only option for some with other commitments.
      Further that real wages are depressed for native British workers with families, mortgages and other commitments. So even if you are employed you might still need a food bank, or help from parents or grandparents.
      So what is actually happening is that employers can keep their wage bills and other obligations lower, with taxpayer funded benefits and charity inspired food and help agencies taking up the slack.
      Imported cheap labour always comes with a price Clive, whether economically or socially.

      • CliveM

        Danby with all due respect you need to get out into industry before you make that judgement. Your stats are interesting but don’t prove anything. Employers want commuted, trained employees. To many currently unemployed couldn’t be trusted to get up on time.

        • Anton

          Because of benefits. Hunger is a great motivator.

          • CliveM

            Or they resort to crime and begging.

            In addition the first child to die of hunger from one of these families deprived of benefits and all hell will let loose. The BBC will have a field day.

          • Anton

            I’d rather the BBC starved. End the licence fee!

        • IanCad

          Clive, I have to disagree with your dismal assessment of our unemployed. Certainly there are many hopeless among the ranks, but give a man a chance and he will work hard and well for fair pay.
          Our capitalist system is – or should be – democratic; and by that I mean every sector of society has a worth that can be squandered, increased and negotiated.
          Such is not the case today; the value of labour has essentially been limited to the rate of the minimum wage. The scarcity of workers was their capital; supply and demand encouraged productivity, loyalty and initiative. With the unending resource of foreign workers our own people have been robbed of their bargaining power, and along with that, much of their self-respect, conservatism and hope.

          • Norman Yardy

            ‘give a man a chance and he will work hard and well for fair pay’ I have very serious doubts about this with the ‘8.77 million people aged from 16 to 64 who were economically inactive (not working and not seeking or available to work)’

          • CliveM

            Ian

            We actually have a flexible and hard working labour force. Amongst the unemployed there is a significant percentage who are short term, genuinely looking for a job and will find it. There is a significant number however who would faint if offered a job.

            Then sadly there is the problem of the skills gap.

          • IanCad

            Clive, Then we’re pretty much in agreement; Not sure though, if there is such a thing as a skills gap. Very few jobs require more than a little common-sense combined with a willingness to learn.

          • Well said.

          • dannybhoy

            How I see it is that the Welfare State has gone well beyond the purposes envisaged by the postwar founders. They did not anticipate a Great Britain which would become dependent on imported labour or which would become a haven for refugees/economic migrants.
            How could they?
            But successive governments gave in to the changing attitudes until it became acceptable to live a life dependent on State benefits paid for by working people paying their taxes -regardless of how near the breadline such individuals or married couples might be.
            So the Welfare State has become ‘the tit’ by which the lazy, the feckless, the uneducated, unskilled, religiously antipathetical immigrant may suckle and flourish in our nation.
            Are you happy Clive to accept a United Kingdom in which native Brits continue to survive on taxpayer funded State benefits whilst we import foreign talent? You prefer the idea of importing doctors, scientists, educators instead of encouraging our own young people to train and fill these vacancies?
            Have you forgotten all the scientific and technological advancements discovered and utilised by British people?
            Well, that’s what I want to go back to. The UK as a nation built on and advancing from our own cultural and historical traditions. As many immigrants who subscribe to that,and are willing to work for and defend that vision are welcome.
            But OUR history, OUR religious and cultural values and OUR laws must be pre-eminent.

        • Linus

          “… commuted, trained employees …”

          So there’s a reason they pack ’em tight into the Tube and suburban trains, eh?

          But I wonder, what is it about employees who’ve been squashed into rail transport for their daily trip to and from their place of work that makes them so desirable to employers? Do buses and private vehicles not have the same effect?

          Or is the issue one of functional illiteracy rather than the effects of public transport?

          • Linus, Continental humour, the kind that picks …or rather, nitpicks… on a misspelling due to type key proximity, for example, works badly even as a quip in English, much less as an overdeveloped skit. Unless, of course, you smoked some really good, resinous ganja again and spent quarter of an hour howling with laughter, dry-mouthed and tears streaming out of reddened eyes, at the unbelievably hilarious image of ….people packed into a subway car. Ah well, never mind, enjoy the small pleasures, bro!

          • Linus

            The man either has a minuscule keyboard or very fat fingers then. Or perhaps he’s barely literate and can’t spell. Given the frequency of his errors and his poorly constructed and spelled sentences, I favour the latter explanation.

            Don’t like my humour? Piss off then.

          • No, no, I actually like it, your umm humour. It often makes me laugh…although perhaps at different facets of it than you might expect.

        • dannybhoy

          We have been away again this weekend, but fear not mon Brave, I will respond to your comment soon…

          • [This was a reply to a post you apparently removed whilst I was still word-smithing. It relates to your and Ian’s comments on the labour situation]

            Yes, I know, first I disappear, and then I’m here, seemingly 24/7. Family’s off to the West Coast and I’m stuck bed with a flu that got me out of shul and shuffling home an hour before Shabbat mid-day kiddush with its selection of costly single malts (three cheers for competitive conspicuous consumption among our doctors and lawyers!) and, of course, the perennial shmaltz herring our Carl is so jealous of. (I think that after their services in their hair shirts, Calvinists allow themselves unsweetened black coffee with sandwiches of single slices of supermarket ham and that processed orange abomination they un-patriotically call “American cheese.”)

            On the subject of employment, it would benefit all here to spend a few hours trawling through Ted Talks on YouTube by specialists in incomputer science, robotics and AI (artificial intelligence). The bottom line is that few are aware how soon and how radical a total transformation of our world, especially our work-related world is about to hit us.

            My own take on this is: Good riddance to jobs, it’s about bloody time. If we look at work from the long view of human history, repetitive work as we know it differs only little from slavery and occupies a very thin sliver in our line of existence. Brief, miserable and socially costly for most except for a few talented, lucky or dedicated souls with exciting careers, or hobbies turned into businesses or fabulous projects. The simultaneous arrival of a computing power explosion, robotics and AI will bust this all up. It can take us anywhere, but unless we screw up …and the obvious risks are many… it will hopefully take us back to the human-standard and historically normal work world of the hunter-gatherer; 3 hours of not too unpleasant and highly sociable work.

            It’s incredible that with the evidence all around us …AI and industrial robots are already here, still mostly in the background and still in their “primitive” stage… almost everyone dismisses the coming train wreck as futuristic fantasies. Predictions vary, but a range of ten to twenty years at most for AI-robot domination of all sorts of fields from law, medicine, manufacturing, transportation and pretty well anything one needs a resume for is average. Sit back and visualize what this will mean to families, human relations, occupations, politics and immigration or migration…actually, never mind; with so many factors and potential pathways, I think we’d need AI to calculate and imagine a plausible scenario!

          • dannybhoy

            Hi Avi
            It was a part answer to Clive but I put it under IanCad’s comment by mistake.
            Man, you’ve been busy these last few days!

          • Making up for my absence while stuck in bed.

        • dannybhoy

          How I see it is that the Welfare State has gone well beyond the purposes envisaged by the postwar founders. They did not anticipate a Great Britain which would become dependent on imported labour or which would become a haven for refugees/economic migrants.
          How could they?
          But successive governments gave in to the changing attitudes until it became acceptable to live a life dependent on State benefits paid for by working people paying their taxes -regardless of how near the breadline such individuals or married couples might be.
          So the Welfare State has become ‘the tit’ by which the lazy, the feckless, the uneducated, unskilled, religiously antipathetical immigrant may suckle and flourish in our nation.
          Are you happy Clive to accept a United Kingdom in which native Brits continue to survive on taxpayer funded State benefits whilst we import foreign talent? You prefer the idea of importing doctors, scientists, educators instead of encouraging our own young people to train and fill these vacancies?
          Have you forgotten all the scientific and technological advancements discovered and utilised by British people?
          Well, that’s the ideal that I want to go back to. The UK as a nation built on and advancing from, our own cultural and historical traditions. As many immigrants who subscribe to that, and are willing to work for and defend that vision are welcome. British Jewry is the premier example of an oppressed minority who eventually were able to integrate into British society without losing their cultural and religious identity.
          But it must be OUR history, OUR religious and cultural values and OUR laws which remains pre-eminent.

    • Royinsouthwest

      There was a time when the mill towns in the North “needed” immigrants and got them from Pakistan. Their descendants are present today in large numbers but what happened to the textile mills?

      • Chefofsinners

        And was Mecca builded here, among those dark Satanic mills?

        • dannybhoy

          Welcome back. Good holiday?

          • Chefofsinners

            Great holiday, thanks. It’s a spectacular part of creation.

          • IanCad

            I hope you brought back a few Smith & Wessons, along with plenty of ammo, the good guys may need some fire power if things continue to progress as they have.

          • Chefofsinners

            The firing range was a favourite of the children. All we brought back was the casing of the first .44 Magnum bullet they fired, which went through the centre of the target.

          • Anton

            Make my day

          • Chefofsinners

            What made my day was the ringmaster at the rodeo, who started the show with a 5 minute gospel message, a prayer for the safety of all participants and a plug for his church. Just a normal day in this country so maligned by the BBC.

          • Of course they’ll love it if they haven’t been brainwashed to swoon at the idea of a …oh no, a GUN! Our youngest, a barely 100 lb sixteen year old who looks like she can’t hold up a water bottle, handles a Glock 43 9mm subcompact better than I can. Changes mags in a blur, doesn’t flinch and holds the damn thing right on target as she does a rapid double-tap straight into the #10 in the centre mass silhouette target. Doesn’t understand why she can’t have one (would fit so nicely in her Tommy Hilfiger purse!) and why we must drive across the border to a range…breaks the heart of a little girl.

          • Chefofsinners

            Child cruelty, alive and well in Canada.

          • Nah, cruelty would be expecting a kid to empty a .44 Smith & Wesson revolver in one go…one handed, right on the red heart of a pink stuffed Care Bear at 15 yards.

          • carl jacobs

            Ummm … there wouldn’t be a pink stuffed Care Bear after one round. So where would the other five bullet go?

          • Hmm, good point; didn’t think of that. Takes a Yank to spot that one…or did you blow away a Care Bare recently?

            Anyway, we better cut off this gun talk, I think our Limey friends here are squirming. They have bobbies with mean looking little truncheons and a stern look to defend them.

          • carl jacobs

            Do you know? I watch a lot of British cop shows. You would be amazed how many times I ask the police character on the screen “Why are you chasing that man when you aren’t carrying a weapon? Do you want to get killed?”

            But of course, script writers can make up reality as they go along.

          • “Stop in the name of Her Majesty, you rascal!”

            “T’is a fair cop, Constable,forgot me ruddy manners, I did…”

          • Hi Avi,

            I’m watching a Canadian cop show called the Murdock mysteries set in Victorian Toronto ….

          • Hi Hannah, this is embarrassing, but I’ve never even heard of it!

          • Hi avi

            Misspelled Murdoch ! But anyways next to sci fi my favourite genre is murder mysteries / who dunnit. Like Colombo, Miss Marple, Sherlock Holmes (Jeremy Brett version ) and Hercule Poirot ( David Suchet version).

          • Just occurred to me that a kid firing a .44 one-handed would only manage one shot, what with its sprained wrist and broken index finger.

          • Young ladies don’t fire guns Avi, that’s boys stuff.

          • carl jacobs

            Oh, yes they do. My brother has taught many women how to shoot. He says he notices a common reaction in these women. At some point in their instruction, they become confident with the weapon, and then they get this look in their eyes. He called it “Freedom”.

          • “Freedom”!? it’s more likely to be a look of the dopamine rush as a result of mastering a new skill and completing an achievement. But, isn’t it against the law to shoot people even in America. so freedom from what? They can shoot at animals I guess.

          • carl jacobs

            Freedom from fear. You are allowed to use a weapon to defend yourself or others.

          • Sounds like the wild west there Carl.

          • carl jacobs

            Yes, that’s a common European stereotype based upon … nothing much whatsoever.

          • I just don’t see why you need a gun to go to the grocery store or the mall?
            I guess with everyone else tooled up to the hilt you feel “free”.

          • carl jacobs

            Who said you needed a gun to go shopping? Only an idiot would carry a weapon in public just in case he might need it.

          • So when and where would you use your guns? If someone broke into your home maybe, but then you can’t shoot first. I guess you could threaten them with it. And if a dangerous animal came sniffing around your home you might want to kill it.

          • Of course you can shoot first if the intruder is armed, Marie. If he’s unarmed, then you’re better off brandishing, unless the fellow fails to obey your instructions to lie face down, interlock his fingers on the back of the head, cross his legs and preferably shut the Hell up while you try calling 911 with a shaky hand.

          • carl jacobs

            Yes, you can shoot first in your own home.

            You should ponder the fate of the citizens of Los Angeles in 1992 when the police ran away for two days and left the city to rioters and looters. If you didn’t have a weapon, you could always hide in your basement and hope not to be noticed.

            There is a famous anecdote about Vietnamese shop keepers during the riots who didn’t get looted and burned. They went up on their roof tops with rifles and shot at looters who moved towards their property. The looters quickly understood “Going down that street will get us killed. Let’s go loot and burn over there instead.”

          • If the police ran away why didn’t the army take over to restore order? Didn’t the looters also have guns?

          • carl jacobs

            The National Guard did show up to restore order, but it took two days to get there. Things like deploying the Guard just don’t happen overnight.

          • Well that’s no damn good, and I thought you were a civilised advanced country. Where were the fire brigade with the water canons? I would have thought a place as big and famous as Los Angeles would have had a back up force of volunteers who are trained for emergency situations, something like a territorial army.

          • Fire brigades against crazed looters, many of them armed with clubs, knives and guns? An unarmed citizenry leaving their security to the police and authorities worked in the days when people lived in smallish cities, respected courtesy and law and order, left their doors unlocked and their children free to roam. Then, our governments turned the schools into psychotherapy sanatoriums, loosened up the laws and penalties, released the mentally ill into the “community” (a.k.a., the streets) and opened up the borders to anyone and anything. And even to barely maintain this mess takes up oodles of money which is fast running out. All it takes is for the lights to go out and the food trucks to be delayed…

          • bluedog

            Here are the rules for shooting first, Marie. 1) Shoot to kill so there’s one less witness. 2) Fire the warning shot. In that order, always. Think about it!

          • Not a fan of open carry? I admit, it took my breath away when I first saw a cute couple packing while waiting in line for a Slurpee at a 7/11. Can’t remember what state I was going through.

          • carl jacobs

            I’m not a fan of untrained, unprepared people pulling a weapon at the wrong time and emptying a clip through the side of a house because the don’t know what they are doing.

          • Agreed, but don’t you have to pass proper training for any kind of carry?

          • carl jacobs

            Not the kind of training that I would expect. I could get a CC permit right now based upon my DD214. I have taken a CC Permit course but it involved no practical training. It was a four hour class. If you are going to go onto the streets with a weapon, you should have to demonstrate proficiency with a weapon to a certified firearms instructor. That means recurring training including those courses that police officers take – the ones where you are required to identify good guys from bad guys and only shoot the bad guys. In other words, you should have to prove the practical ability to handle the weapon by actually shooting the weapon.

          • You’re lucky. I’ve law enforcement training, pistol and “long gun” as it’s called here, from decades ago, but no special privileges. Long permission process, safety and range courses, but weapons have to stay home locked up or at range. In a home invasion, you’d be better off throwing the gun cabinet at the bugger, by the time you unlock it, unlock the trigger guard, find the ammo and load it and duly warn him of the dire consequences. Even cops in service have to leave their side arms at the division and have to apply for possession permits…with no open or concealed carry available!

          • Anton

            Wasn’t there a flood or something in a Canadian city a few years ago where the police broke into all empty homes where guns were registered and took away the weapons, even though they were lawful, leaving the doors hanging loose for looters?

          • Yes, I remember something like that. Had they taken their guns with them, without hunting permits or not on the shortest route to their gun club or rifle range, they could have been charged with unlawful transport. Registration allows the police to enter your home without a warrant at any time to confirm proper storage.

            The message in Canada, especially by the Liberal parties, is anti-gun and laws are used to make it expensive and troublesome to keep such. Until we have a constitutional recognition that the right to bear arms for personal protection and as a counter-weight to domestic and foreign tyranny, as with the Second Amendment in the US, things will get incrementally more difficult and legally risky for registered fire arms owners…while ownership of unregistered weapons, home made alternatives and 3D print versions (takes about $20 worth of metal and six hours to tool one on a home printer) will continue to increase at reportedly “alarming” rates.

          • Linus

            You can shoot anyone you like in the US as long as you say they were scaring you. The American police do it all the time and are rarely held to account.

            Of course it helps if the person scaring you is black. That’s a virtual guarantee of impunity. Try shooting a blonde white woman and you may get into some difficulty with the law, although I’m told the “but I thought she was Ann Coulter” defence works well, even with Republican judges. Nobody capable of imagining what it might be like to meet her in a dark alley could possibly convict anyone of the use of undue and illicit force. The murderous look in those cold eyes and the veins popping in that sinewy neck are the perfect defence…

          • Again, facts dampen your flights of fancy. Proportionally, Whites are shot far more often by police than Blacks. True, more blacks are arrested, but that’s because at 13 percent of the population they are responsible for 50 percent of crimes. The biggest killers of Blacks are, by far, other Blacks, usually gang members who, thanks to recently getting protection from Black Lives Matter, now compete for dominance in many a neighbourhood. This is the third or fourth time this anti-police followed by pro-police cycle has repeated itself in my time, so as the killing of innocent bystanders gets even more out of hand, expect the same Black “community leaders” who called for the racist police to stay away from the ghettos recently, to begin complaining that they are being discriminated against by being “under-served” by the racist police …which had been ordered to stand down by the very same “community leaders.” Keep in mind that the worst level of Black-on-Black violence occurs in cities and districts run by Democrats, often with Black mayors and Black chiefs of police.

          • Not the kind my daughter dreams of; a semi-auto tactical, like an AR-15, with pink “furniture” and her fav stickers:http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/bucket4fro/media/cGF0aDpwaW5rIEFSL0RTQ18wMDgyLTFfenBzNDdkYTJjN2MuanBn/?ref=

            Anyway, if she wants to join her best friend and volunteer in the IDF, while her mom and dad worry, she better get comfy with things that go “boom.”

          • I can’t imagine a young lady would be dreaming of pink guns, fighting and killing people. Is she a bit you know…. gender fluid then? I guess you can’t stop her joining up.

          • Don’t be ridiculous, Marie. Gender-fluid? Fighting and killing people? Shame on you! She’s a pretty, feminine young lady, modest, well-adjusted, with great grades, and hundreds of hours charity volunteer work. She has no desire to go into combat duty and kill people…she wants to be a nurse and she’s great with little kids. Why would I stop her? My wife served in the Canadian navy before we met…you’ve heard of women serving in the armed and police forces, I’m sure?

          • carl jacobs

            Wait. Canada has a navy? Does Canada know?

          • One of the days, Carl, one of these days….

          • Yes of course we had the WRENS, they were a great asset.
            Oh! well that’s better, I’m sure she will make an excellent nurse.

          • Yes, women who’ve served or can handle a weapon properly in a tactical situation are a great asset to their family, country and neighbours. Competence, confidence and responsibility. Doesn’t mean that you have to throw them into combat duty or treat them like ruffians, but if the Toronto Metropolitan ever runs out of 1 billion per year to pay its police service….

          • IanCad

            They even have fashion shows for lady shooters Marie.

            https://www.nracarryguardexpo.com/special-events/concealed-carry-fashion-show/

          • bluedog

            Scary stuff. Would Mae West approve?

          • IanCad

            Not so sure about Mae West bd.

            Annie Oakley would be all square with it though:

          • bluedog

            Poor Annie, one of life’s bridesmaids. If frontier blondes are your thing, Doris is queen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU8tQpCZEzg&t=53s

          • IanCad

            Shocking!! How insensitive!! Not even a hint of gender neutrality; Even less of any resistance to cultural appropriation. I shall retire to my safe place and comfort myself with a nice quinoa and avocado salad washed down with a mug of organic goat’s milk.

          • bluedog

            Hipster heaven!

          • Haha! Betty Hutton at her best! Frontier blondes…hmm, interesting category you’ve pin-pointed there bluedog.

          • For your intellectual elucidation, of course, here’s a photo of Mrs Dana Loesch, a spokesperson for the US National Rifle Association. A lethat “shootist” and an elegant, feisty and brilliant Fox News contributor: https://www.thefirearmsforum.com/threads/dana-loesch-to-serve-as-nra-spokesperson.169707/

          • IanCad

            Yes Ma’am!! Anything you say Ma’am!! Right away Ma’am!!

          • I would have found a way to introduce her to our Inspector General, as I think she’s of the rare type of intellect and mix of tough and sweet he’d respect …or if nothing else, be at least shit-scared of… but I understand she’s already married.

          • The Yanks are totally bonkers!

        • Merchantman

          And was Al Quds builded here? Got a nice ring to it don’t you think? Ugly as sin if you ask me; but there again like Islamic terrorism ‘we might just have to get used to it.’

        • Ha! A Wm. Blake fan, I see. A redeeming quality…

        • betteroffoutofit

          In a word: NO!!!
          Thing is, as you surely note – Mecca doesn’t scan in England’s green and pleasant land!

          • Manfarang

            Of course there was Mecca- a bingo parlour .

        • Anton

          About as much as Jerusalem was…

          And did those feet? Well, No, actually!

          • Manfarang

            And did those feet tread in Kashmir?

      • CliveM

        Can’t comment on the textile mills beyond noting they have been in decline for as long as I can remember, caused by cheap imports rather then labour shortages.

  • Inspector General

    The Inspector is watching the second instalment of that program that seeks to educate children to be ‘gender neutral’ of all things. We join a class of 8 year olds.

    “Hello little girl”

    “Hello Inspector”

    “You don’t look very happy”

    “I’m not. I want to play with pink clothes and hats and things, but I have to play with Lego instead”

    “Oh dear! But why are you playing with Lego if you don’t want to?”

    “Because that f______ Arab over there told me to”

    • IanCad

      Try as I might Inspector and mindful of our Christian obligation not to hate, nor to wish our enemies ill, I cannot help but hope that Dr.Javid Abdelmoneim will face swift, condign punishment for his perversion of our little ones.
      I have not seen the program but the very subject itself is an affront to God and nature.

      • Inspector General

        It’s child abuse as we know, Ian. Nothing more than to sow the seeds of ‘gender doubt’ in the impressionable.

        The rogue knows that if he tried this disgrace in his home country, the parents would be outraged as we are. They would demand to see him, and on finding him, scream something about Allah being the greatest and despatch him there and then.

        Such are the ways of these ‘essential’ immigrants we are taking in. We have gone mad. No doubt about it.

    • magnolia

      Somewhat absurd. Of course girls like playing with duplo and lego. It is pretty much a universal toy, rather domestically focused even, homes, people, and animals included. But then maybe you haven’t had any children? “Pink clothes and hats and things” would sound ultimately boring to most girls as it clearly does to you, too.

      I remember my friends from my first school. One pretty and very feminine girl with long blonde hair was pretty much into anything dangerous, and would throw herself off the top diving board with fearlessness.

      Maybe the girls you have met haven’t been very spirited?

      • Inspector General

        The rascal Arab was depending on the building blocks to demonstrate natural spatial inclinations, Mags. Sorry, old thing, but the boys are far more interested in that kind of construction material than girls, and the single example you give that bucks the trend can be discounted.

      • You are basing your argument on personal anecdotes and a swipe at the Inspector. In the real world which we measure with statistics, boys and girls have play and occupation preferences which are similar the world over. The games boys play resemble hunting, building and conflict or warfare; the ones girls play concern maternity, negotiated interactions and domestic skills…for a good reason, namely that those are the kinds of occupations that are expected of them and which attract them. Culture and socialization play a role, but can’t entirely explain the universality and prevalence of this distribution. We can object in principle and pretend, but biology and anatomy cannot be dismissed.

        Yes, there are exceptions and both sexes can achieve success in all the areas, but the distribution is stubbornly bell-curved across all societies and across time, with the vast majority stacked in the “traditional” middle. There are no examples anywhere and at any time of a lasting culture that has reversed the roles successfully. What’s even more curious, is that given a real choice and in spite of serious attempts to equalize opportunities, people will drift towards the “stereotypes.” This is why in the most egalitarian societies, such as the Scandinavian nations, you will find very few women engineers and male nurses…we’re talking single digit percentages, lower than in most parts of the world.

        • Inspector General

          Bravo, sir!

        • Manfarang

          I loved playing doctors and nurses.

          • Both?

          • Manfarang

            No there were several of us.

          • Kidding. It was an easy one, Manfarang, ripe, succulent and ready to be plucked and I’m a weak man.

        • magnolia

          No, I wasn’t making the sweeping assertions which you are suggesting that I was making. It would have been odd had I objected to the Inspector’s sweeping assertions that way. I was merely talking about:

          a) duplo and lego, which are of course marketed towards both genders and have been for decades; commercial, isn’t it?
          b) the dismissive and disrespectful tone all too frequently adopted towards women in the comments section that was horridly encapsulated in the phrase “I want to play with pink clothes and hats and things”-

          Sometimes its like a misogynists’ playpen here. This would be how most women would react to a phrase like that in the real world, and no I am not talking about extreme feminists, people I find frankly tedious and rather irrelevant.

          • Inspector General

            Calm down woman!

            You have clearly made yourself hysterical over nothing, as is woman’s prerogative. Perhaps a stay at the Barchester Rest Home for Distressed Gentlefolk will restore your zing and allow your humours to settle.

          • magnolia

            Well I guess I must be safe giving grandsons Elsa’s Sparkling ice-castle from Lego’s Disney Princess range, then, as Lego is clearly only for boys!!

            Just let the children get on with playing with what they want. Play is play before it is some preparation for adult occupation. It is also a social bonding so children compromise preferred modes for group cohesion. Childhood is short, especially these days and adults who wish to over-interfere or label or interject adult neuroses and over-interpretations are a pain in the neck. Adults’ primary function is to provide rather than to label or to circumscribe.

          • I don’t speak for the Inspector’s unique style of expressing himself, apart from personally discovering …on my day one on this forum, in fact… how effective it can be at winding and working up people to the point where they trip themselves up fall flat on their face. I was remarking on the weaknesses of casual personal observations. Speaking of misogynists’ playpens, most forums are overwhelmingly frequented and dominated by men. A rare example of indisputable equal opportunity (access to a pc and time) and a clear preference distribution by sex. Nature or nurture?

            On your point below, when we had our youngest, I made an (expensive) effort to introduce her to all sorts of neat and serious boy toys, with which I wound up playing with alone eventually (the crane was amazing and I couldn’t get enough of the construction set!). These, to my disappointment, were rejected for the most stereotypically girly kinds you can imagine. I was disappointed until I took time to observe and learn just how incredibly complex and sophisticated the socially-oriented and intellectually challenging “girl play” can be with seemingly simple and silly props like a few dolls and stuffies. Our daughter was constructing, from scratch, not buildings or things, but entire worlds with their own intricate rules and events. Seems to me that he greater sexism nowadays is not in depriving girls of more supposedly “useful” and “intelligent” toys, but in devaluing and dismissing the kinds of toys and games they want to make their own with labels like “cheap,” “superficial,” “submissive,” and “servile.” .

          • dannybhoy

            “Girl think” can be difficult to understand. Having quite often worked with groups of females I was sensitive enough to pick up the group undercurrents but not bright enough to interpret them..

          • Don’t feel bad, happens to all of us of the male persuasion; after you mess up with their complex hand-clapping games, try Pig Latin to the peals of laughter, tie yourself up cat’s cradles and gape like an ape at those undercurrents you mention and we all have been confused by, you start to suspect that you’re the butt of joke to a superior and very alien intelligence.

          • bluedog

            Quite right. At the risk of being branded a misogynistic dinosaur, there’s a downside in this. For all the talk of equal opportunity, even seen what happens when a woman becomes the chief in any organisation? Very frequently all the senior posts are miraculously filled by women to the detriment of the careers of men. It depends on the woman, of course. But it’s a sociological phenomenon that is worthy of study, politically incorrect as the suggestion may be.

          • PeterKovatchev

            There are studies on that. Generally, women prefer not to make careers their life at the expense of family and quality of life. I call that smart and good. This is what the Google techie got slammed for; for pointing out this fact and arguing for changes in the corporate culture which would allow women to succeed in top positions without sacrificing their lives for the company. Women want to liberate the corporate world from what’s essentially white collar slavery, with its singleton culture, endless rah-rah-rah “team building,” long hours, stupid meetings and unnecessary trips. In this they are smarter than most men, and yet radical feminists demand that they adjust to a dysfunctional old corporate models for the sake of…equality!

          • bluedog

            Thank you!

  • Albert

    Upvoted on the assumption that this is ironic!

  • Maxine Schell

    I must get an English dictionary ……from England.

    • Manfarang

      Big Ben is a dirty great TICK TOCK that lives near Westminster Bridge. Well, turns out that Big Ben is in a bit of a TWO AND EIGHT, so for the next four years a load of CAPTAIN KIRK, totaling £29m, will be carried out on the Elizabeth Tower to renovate the building and the bell itself.
      http://www.cockneyrhymingslang.co.uk/

  • David

    The Italian police suspect that the criminals responsible for the vicious attack and rape inflicted on a young Polish couple on an Italian beach, as reported in Breitbart London, was carried out by illegal African migrants. Whatever the police eventually establish, this will only serve to strengthen Poland’s, and the rest of the Visegrad Group’s, determination to keep their borders sealed to immigration from Islamic nations.
    Certainly the EU’s suicidal open borders dogma is permitting African migrants to sweep across the Schengen zone. Designed originally to allow movements between EU nations, which itself was a most questionable policy, it has now long become an utterly foolish one, in the face of the new reality. I wonder if the Pope will hear of this ?

  • Murti Bing

    ‘What they say must be true
    For it’s in the news again
    The PM has gone loopy
    And the Pope has gone insane’

  • Murti Bing
    • Inspector General

      “Does this dress make my arse look paranoid”

      • Chefofsinners

        Yes.

    • Anton

      Dear Baroness Warsi

      I have no doubt you are right about the percentage of Muslims in Britain who are terrorists. But would you also give us, please, the percentage of terrorists who are Muslims in 21st century Britain? Which of the two figures is most relevant to the government?

    • I don’t see or hear her standing up and publically intellectually challenging jihadi theology. She moans about us not trusting Muslims, well I’m sorry but they have to earn our trust. Actions speak louder than words. There are very few Muslims challenging the death cult that is Islam. Instead of whinging why doesn’t she use her power and influence to start a movement.

  • len

    Christians should take a lot less notice of what the Pope says and a lot more notice of the words of Jesus Christ.

    • Dolphinfish

      Ok, how about Matthew 16:18-19?

      • Dominic Stockford

        So Jesus built his church on the belief that He is the Son of God. Wowee. We hadn’t heard that one before.

  • Inspector General

    The Inspector repeats his dire warning. The greatest of empires at the time, the Roman Empire, was brought down by massive movements of people. The barbarians took over and a thousand years of dark age followed.

    This is the legacy we are leaving our children. They will hate us for that, and rightly, you know.

    • Chefofsinners

      Not wanting to be pedantic, but it was 500 years of dark ages. In the West. And the empire lasted in the East until 1453.

      • Inspector General

        You must look up the word ‘Renaissance’ sometime. Or perhaps, you don’t need any further enlightenment. Having been blessed with the gift of knowing all….

        • betteroffoutofit

          We got ‘reborn’ in spite of the the frogs, dear Inspector – not because of them!!! They just like ot claim they created civilization; they didn’t (:

        • Chefofsinners

          Yes, it is a blessing. I’m thinking of calling it ‘The Higher Understanding’. What do you think?
          Look up the words ‘Late Middle Ages’ sometime.

    • betteroffoutofit

      Dear Inspector: Doubtless the “Ages” you reference were darker than ever in Rome, Idaly and in frogland etc. — but they sure as heck weren’t dark in England, Wales, and Ireland. Many Old English/Norse scholars will point out the misnomer and misconception: the scholarship and literature produced here was enlightened – and it lightened the way to Europe’s recovery from Viking predations, as well as to our own later recovery from the Anglo-Normans. Just because most posmoderns haven’t got what it takes to understand and work with the materials, doesn’t mean they aren’t here (as preserved in our monasteries and, later, universities].

      Thence to our culture in English via Langland, Chaucer, Shakespeare, and ff.
      “Dark Ages” ?— Oh, indeed we agree that those are here and now. Perhaps the darkest ever . . .

      • Inspector General

        A land of lawlessness with tribes and chieftains and a hand to mouth existence for everyone. Of course, there would be the odd germination of civilisation as Rome knew it, and it is to those sparse occurrences that you fondly look back on and present as the norm.

        • betteroffoutofit

          Inspector: You’re very insulting concerning scholarship of and about the Early Middle Ages (esp. Old English and Irish). Your sweeping dismissal of all documentary evidence, combined with your ad feminam sneer about my ‘fondness’ and mis-‘presentation’ hardly merit the effort – but here are some points for your consideration.

          Your Roman exodus occurred in mid-5th Century. Irish and Picts raided British lands in those days. There was Irish settlement in Wales and Scotland. Some Anglo-Saxon settlement also occurred in the British-Celtic home of what is now England (Bede I.12-15, 58-64).

          No scholar in the discipline is unaware of Classical (Roman & Greek) influence on the development of Anglo-Saxon/British culture. Since British education grew through the auspices of the Church, one refers you, for starters, to studies about Augustine @ Canterbury from AD 597; and also about Theodore of Tarsus (@ Canterbury AD 668-90, who was accompanied by the African abbot Hadrian and by Benedict Biscop – who collected many books from abroad, and who set up schools.

          Of course, our very own historian Bede (“Eccclesiastical History of the English People”*) is essential reading – and some, like editor D. H. Farmer, suggest that Bede’s account, follows ideas of Gregory the Great in describing a movement from diversity to unity within the land (“Introduction” 27).

          As to laws – AD 560-616: Aethelberht reigned in Kent. He produced a law code in English, the only surviving copy of which is in the twelfth-century Textus Roffensis. The code, Rochester Cathedral Library, MS A.3.5, is possibly the oldest known document in English.
          Also – from AD 688-726 – Ine was King of the West Saxons (Bede V.7, 276). He produced a law code in English, the oldest copy of which is in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 173, ff. 47ff, where it follows the mid-tenth century “Parker Chronicle” and the “Laws of Alfred”. [And, of course, one shouldn’t forget about Alfred the Great’s (AD 871-99) work to restore British/English literary and educational standards, following Viking predations]. Other legal documents were produced during the Anglo-Saxon period, especially including charters about land ownership. Note that these documents were in English – that means: The People could understand them.

          Also stemming from Alfred’s time are the monastic productions of “Anglo-Saxon Chronicles,” now to be found chiefly at the British Library, Oxford’s Bodleian, and Corpus Christi, Cambridge.

          Another noteworthy figure is Alcuin of York (c. 735- 804) – he who both used and contributed to the great (classical) library at York. At the court of Charlemagne, in euroland, Alcuin was a leader in what is sometimes called the “Carolingian Renaissance”; he developed Charlieboy’s educational system and the Carolingian minuscule script.

          You probably have heard of some major literary productions, including illuminated manuscripts like the “Lindisfarne Gospels”; the epic poem “Beowulf”; and “The Dream of the Rood” – which is among other works in the Vercelli manuscript. Oh — and then there was a “Hymn” by the cowherd Caedmon, who was at Whitby AD 658-680. Cassidy and Ringler suggest that the significance of his poem is: “the inspired discovery of how to adapt the ancient, heroic formulas of Germanic oral poetry to the expression of Christian themes and ideas” (125)**.

          These sources, Sir, offer merely a sample of what is available from your “Dark Ages” (when some monks learned to recite all the Psalms, daily). So – overall – I’m surprised at you: even if you were all carried away with the Roman aspects of Gloucester, surely you would be aware of the insular base those invaders had sought (but ultimately failed) to destroy.

          _____________
          *Bede. “Ecclesiastical History of the English People.” Translated by Leo Sherley-Price; Revised by R. E. Latham. Introduction and Notes by D. H. Farmer. London: Penguin, 1990.

          **Cassidy, Frederic G. And Richard N. Ringler, eds. Bright’s Old English Grammar and Reader. Third edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971.

          • Inspector General

            Good grief! One tips his hat to your outstanding knowledge, madam!

            Now, where’s the best place for a fellow to slink away in humiliation, having been learned a thing or two…

    • Lucius

      The fall of Rome had many underlying causes, but if I had to give primacy to a single cause, it would be this … the Roman people, over time, ceased being Roman.

  • Chefofsinners

    It is surely time to remove the image of Mrs Proudie from the top of her column. It is deeply insensitive to portray a white female and male, with no transgender or ethnic minority representation. And being the work of Avi, who is of the Jewish persuasion, it is surely offensive to most of the Labour Party. Let us replace it with a nice inoffensive geometric pattern.

    On the matter of rehearsal space, we must rejoice in the benefits of a multi cultural society. No doubt all buskers, minstrels and heavy metal practitioners will receive a warm welcome at the Barchester Mosque.

    • I have to live with the other extreme on the spectrum; occasional finger-wagging emails by a few over-enthusiastic co-religionists who disapprove of my rendering of a cross and a lady who is showing collar bone. I usually ask them about what they are doing on an Anglican blog and they go away….

  • James60498 .

    If you type in something along the lines of Germany Cricket Immigration in a web browser you will come across various MSM articles about how German cricket is blossoming with the introduction of immigrants. How supposedly everyone is integrating. Apparently according to one of the articles I read one team even has a Christian.

    But if you do look don’t expect to find this comment in the BBC report. It was made by the Managing Director of
    German cricket.

    “Most are males between 14 and 40 and every second one seems to be a cricketer”.

    Doesn’t really sound like the families and children narrative that the Pope and his fellow (is that not a sexist term?) NWO people want us to believe.

    I rather suspect that he has been shot for admitting the truth even though he was saying it as something that was a positive to his organisation.

    • Anton

      So we’re going to lose to Germany at cricket next?

      • Well, that settles that then; swing open the gates for the teeming multitude of cricketers!

        • James60498 .

          That would be no use in English cricket.

          With the current obsession in all British sport of the equality of women’s games, you couldn’t just admit men between 14 and 40, you would have to admit the women too.

          The ECB would be demanding the Army go out and kidnap women and bring them over.

          • Anton

            The solution to that is simple: unisex teams. Not a woman in England would get anywhere near the national XI. And they couldn’t complain about inequality, could they?

          • James60498 .

            I am sure they would find a way.

            I remember a few years ago, the BBC made a massive fuss about an England woman’s player playing for the 3rd team of a local club side. That’s probably about the level.

          • Anton

            What worries me is equality legislation being used to demand equal time for women’s matches at Lords and other great cricket arenas.

          • James60498 .

            The way the cricket authorities seem to be behaving at the moment, I am not sure whether legislation will be necessary

            In rugby too if you look up the international teams ranking you have to select between “mru” and “wru”. In England some sense is prevailing but the fake uproar following a recent decision may well lead to legislation.

            My younger son’s RE class was told a little time ago by their teacher that the computer FIFA game is sexist because it graded the men better than the women. I don’t know much about football or computer games but I rather suspect that this has been amended now.

          • Anton

            Fantasy football is the only form in which the women can compete on equal terms.

          • Chefofsinners

            To strike a discordant note…
            I have just had a look at last night’s women’s rugby World Cup final. I watch a lot of rugby and this was more entertaining than most men’s games. Freer flowing, scrums not collapsing, more turn-overs, fewer infringements, better split-second decision making, skilful kicking and more respect for the ref. And our team made it to the final.

          • IanCad

            Surprised at you Chef. I could imagine a healthy chap like you deriving a measure of delight watching the ladies play beach volleyball but to enjoy seeing a herd of “Buffalo Gals” engaging in the vulgar rituals of rugby casts a shadow over your credibility.

          • Anton

            To adapt Wellington’s comment about his troops, I don’t know if the England women’s rugby team frighten their opponents but they certainly frighten me!

          • IanCad

            Ha-Ha!!! Good one Anton!
            Tempted to expand on the theme of Wellingtonia by quoting his “Scum Scrum of the earth” observation.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Regarding giant redwoods, in the 19th centrury over here in Blighty they were for a while known as Wellingtonia, in the USA as Washingtonia, but both names were declared invalid as they had previously been given to other plants. In 1939 things were sorted out by an American botanist who pointed out that they are a distinct genus from the coastal redwoods Sequoia and called them Sequoiadendron giganteum.

          • IanCad

            We are fortunate to have a Wellingtonia – or at least that’s what most people refer to it as – about 50 yds from our house. It had a companion that succumbed to bugs a couple of years back and is about 150′ tall. I know! A relative pygmy, but I’m sure it is a Coastal Redwood as it’s relative skinny with no great widening at the base. I’ve spent a lot of years in California and I miss those Redwood Groves.

          • Anton

            I’m quite sure that those are the only reasons you watch women’s rugby.

          • dannybhoy

            Male and Female created He them..
            Males provide and protect, females give birth and nurture..
            Each to his own Chef, each to his own….

          • Dominic Stockford

            And we lost. Sort of normal, really.

          • Sarky

            I used to play mixed cricket over 20 years ago. Its nothing new!!

          • IanCad

            As I recall, the men played the game out on the pitch and the ladies brewed the tea and made the sandwiches in the pavilion. An excellent arrangement for all.

          • Hahaha! O, what a tangled web we weave when we live in a world of make-believe!

      • carl jacobs

        Well, so long as the Americans continue to ignore Cricket, you won’t lose to us. So there’s that at least.

      • andrew

        Jokes aside, not quite, because Germans only succeed when inhabited and driven by their own (indigenous). Like all western nations, she’ll fail as she distorts her own history to legitimise the claim that imported Muslims ‘are just as German as the rest of us’.

        • Dominic Stockford

          Their football team is already well-inhabited by those of an islamic persuasion.

          • andrew

            There are a few, true. But not an entire team, imported and rebranded as ‘German’. But such a thing will no-doubt take place in my lifetime.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Quite so. It’s on it’s way.

        • Anton

          Just why is Ma Merkel ahead in the opinion polls for the coming election despite letting in a million Muslims? Are the Germans mad?

  • Manfarang
    • Sarky

      Its french payback for brexit.

      • bluedog

        Did Linus break wind?

        • HedgehogFive

          In Arabic that action is called a “faswa”. Since a Mufti is one who issues fatwas, that would make him a Mufsi.

        • Pubcrawler

          He’s certainly been cutting the cheese.

      • Manfarang

        Or a gas tanker in the Channel from the Middle East.

    • Linus

      Why shouldn’t chemical plants situated on the Manche sluice out their tanks when the wind is blowing from the south? There’s nothing of any significance to the north apart from a few mudflats inhabited by prehistoric hominids.

      Of course those hominids currently benefit from EU agreements regarding air quality and pollution control, so if this cloud was due to a French manufacturer’s negligence, one supposes the company will have to be rapped over the knuckles. For form’s sake if nothing else. But come May 2019, industry in that region will be able to vent anything it likes as long as the wind carries it northwards.

      I suspect most French chemical plants have already cottoned on to this idea and are even now making agreements with their counterparts on the Manche coast to take and stock their chemical waste until the day that Brexit is finalised. So if May 2019 seems to be a foggy month, you’ll know why. I hope you enjoy it: after all, you love chemical smog and give it charming and evocative names like “pea souper”.

      As my late lamented maman used to say, if British cuisine doesn’t kill you on the plate, breathing it in will do the trick…

      • Manfarang

        The French still have industry? I thought they were busy making smelly cheeses.

        • Linus

          As opposed to what? Tasteless, odourless cheeses such as you find in Britain?

          • Anton

            France rules for soft cheeses, England for hard.

          • Linus

            England has one decent hard cheese, which in 99% of cases is badly made, and one decent blue cheese, reasonable examples of which are slightly easier to find.

            Apart from those two, it’s all muck. Double Gloucester? Boring yellow wax. Lancashire? Granular and tasteless chalk. And modern abominations (that really do deserve the word) like Garlic Yarg or Cambozola? Least said, soonest mended.

            You have decent pasturage and a climate (in the south at least) that lends itself to cheesemaking, but you lack two vital ingredients. Taste and imagination.

            But then you’re British. Nobody expects you to have either.

          • Anton

            And you don’t have knowledge. Cambozola is soft, whereas I was talking about hard cheeses, and is German in origin, whereas I was talking about England. You also need to get beyond the supermarkets.

          • Linus

            I was talking of English cheeses in general.

            Yet again you mistakenly believe you have the power to set the limits of conversations and force me to stay within them. You say “hard cheese” therefore I am forced to talk only of hard cheeses. But that’s not how conversation works.

            I’m puzzled as to why you think you have the authority to set the terms of conversations when you so clearly do not, as I have proven on so many occasions. But then I suppose the series of fixed ideas and obsessions that characterise your personality are impervious to change.

            It is true that Cambozola is German in origin, however I was referring to it as a generic term for any blue cheese made to resemble (however poorly) brie. I refuse to insult real French cheese by using the common English term of “blue brie”. English soft cheeses made to look like brie is not brie. It is an unappetising and virtually tasteless mass of improperly fermented and aged milk curd (and sky pixie knows what else) masquerading as brie, just as prosecco and cava are unappetising and virtually tasteless concoctions of poorly fermented grape juice and vast quantities of sugar masquerading as champagne.

            Of course at least the makers of prosecco and cava have the decency not to call their second rate imitations by the name of the superior product they’re trying to imitate. But then they’re Italian and Spanish. You’d expect them to be civilised. The English on the other hand…

            I have eaten a variety of English cheeses and have been disappointed by all of them, except one very good farmhouse cheddar and a couple of Stiltons. These are, I will allow, worthy of the name cheese. All of the others are like most British food products: poorly produced by uneducated amateurs using inferior raw materials and improperly understood production techniques. The result is a product so uniform, bland and totally uninteresting that only a pre-pubescent child with an undeveloped palate could appreciate it. Which describes the average British “foodie” perfectly.

            British cheese is a child’s imitation of the real thing. Of course if you give real cheese to an uneducated child who’s never tasted it before, he’ll spit it out and ask for the bland, homogenized, tastless pap he usually eats. So the Brits adapt their cheeses to what the market wants.

          • IanCad

            The Lord only knows what vitriol would be unleashed if you were reviewing American cheeses.
            We at least have Stilton and Wensleydale.

          • Linus

            There are no cheeses in America. Just blocks of compressed milk fat.

            And by Wensleydale, I suppose you mean that wet, crumbly, curd-like substance that tastes of poor quality milk sweetened with honey that’s been left out during a thunderstorm and has gone distinctly “off”.

            You’re welcome to it. Indeed when the tariff wall goes up and the pound is flushed even deeper down the toilet it’s fallen into since Brexit was announced, it may be all you can get. Proper French cheese will be far too expensive for you. So it’ll be cheddar fondues and grated Wensleydale on your spagbol from here on in.

            Rather you than me.

          • Anton

            I claimed no authority over this exchange. I just call you out when you talk rubbish, as you did above. If you don’t want that to happen, don’t talk rubbish. And get beyond the supermarkets and your own snobbery in order to sample English hard cheese.

            The Australians called their sparkling white champagne and told the French to get stuffed for a long time. Are some people too vain to realise that imitation is a compliment?

          • Linus

            Your problem is and always has been is that any statement you don’t agree with or that falls outside of the bounds of the conversation you want to have is “rubbish”.

            If you want to know why your idiotic religion has fallen by the wayside, look no further than the tendency of people like you to dismiss what others say as rubbish.

          • Anton

            OK, would “nonsense” be clearer?

            Say “cheese”….

          • Manfarang

            As long as it is kosher.

  • Dominic Stockford

    “Is the man stark raving mad?” Yes. Obviously.

    A good read.