Fostering2
Poverty and Exclusion

We must fight harder for vulnerable, abused and neglected children

This is a guest post by Dr Krish Kandiah – President of the London School of Theology and founding director of Home for Good, a new fostering and adoption charity.

_________

There was nearly a fist-fight at the back of the church. I was giving a talk about God’s concern for vulnerable children at a church in Leeds that runs the largest homeless outreach programme in the city. There were men present who had recently come out of prison and men who had been sleeping rough, as well as professionals, and students in their 20s. Such a fascinating mix of people demonstrated something of church at its best. Contrary to what you may be expecting, it wasn’t one of the ex-offenders at the heart of the dust-up. I was taking questions, and a member of the audience had taken offence at something I had said. He declared himself to be a member and former employee of Ukip and he was quick to tell me that it was the Labour Party and the Conservative Party who were responsible for the recent child abuse cases in Rotherham and Oxfordshire. The Ukip member’s question didn’t sit well with a local activist for a more leftist party, and things got a little bit feisty over coffee and cake at the end.

For me that service was a collision of important cross-currents in both church and culture as we approached the General Election. It is so easy to forget the most vulnerable; to forget those without a voice who are victims – even of systems designed to protect them. Every 22 minutes, a child enters the UK care system. Every year, 9,000 young people ‘age out’ of the care system – becoming too old to be fostered, adopted, or cared for. Staggeringly, 38% of those young people are not staying in education, training or finding employment.

As a nation we are failing children who have had the hardest start to their lives. We are failing to provide them safety while they are in care or to leave care equipped for life.

I was very uncomfortable with the attempt to politicise child protection. The horrific levels of child abuse that took place in Oxford and Rotherham came about partly because of the way that young people in care had been problematised, and so their reports of abuse and cries for help were not heard. Bureaucracy, cuts in social service provision, cultural sensitivities – all of these contributed to the situation. But for any party to try and make political capital out of this misery is, to my mind, inappropriate to say the least. Despite personal reservations about Ukip on a number of fronts, I must commend them for including this substantial commitment in their manifesto:

UKIP will reform the care system so the 68,000 children in care in the UK… can find stability through fostering and adoption in a faster, more efficient way. We will extend the provisions of the Children and Families Act 2014, which gives children in care the choice to stay with their foster families until they turn 21, to children in homes, so they too have the same opportunity.

This is difficult to fault as a manifesto promise, but the promise of young people to be able to stay with their foster families is already in place thanks to the “staying put scheme” introduced by the last government. Some might see various of Ukip’s other policies working against this promise, for example plans to withhold benefits to asylum seekers and migrant workers will put more families at risk of not being able to provide for their children and so endanger the wellbeing of more children, potentially bringing more children into the care system.

Only the Liberal Democrats were even more expansive on their plans to reform the care system. In their manifesto they made commitments that included:

* Expect Local Authorities to set out a clear purpose for the care system: to promote emotional wellbeing and resilience, provide a secure base on which children can be supported in their development and provide individually tailored help with recovery.
* Raise the quality and profile of children’s social work, continuing and expanding the Frontline programme – which is fast-tracking the brightest and best into the profession – to at least 300 graduate recruits each year.
* Tackle delay and instability in foster care, with better support and training for foster carers, including on mental health issues.
* Continue to make it easier for children in care to find a loving home, through the national Adoption Register and the new national gateway for adoption, a first point of contact for potential adopters.
* Prevent looked after children and young people being drawn into the criminal justice system unnecessarily by promoting restorative justice.

After significant investment and innovation in the area of adoption including increased post-adoption support and innovations including the introduction of the £19m Adoption Support Fund and the Pupil Premium; streamlining of the adoption process and reduction of undue emphasis on ethnic matching; introduction of ‘Fostering for Adoption’ and the “staying put” scheme giving foster children the option to stay with their foster carers until aged 21, and the announcement of a review of SGOs, it is surprising that the Conservative Party Manifesto had but the most minimal of commitments:

We have made progress in reforming our adoption system, but there is more to do . We will introduce regional adoption agencies, working across local authority boundaries to match children with the best parents for them. We will continue to raise the quality of children’s social work.

The Labour Party and Greens have nothing specific about adoption or fostering that I could see in their manifestos. This potential omission is a problem.

In the light of the child abuse scandals of Rotherham and Oxford, it is expected that more of these kind of systematised abuses of children in care are going to come to light in other areas. At present, children entering the care system are disadvantaged and this can have long-lasting effects – like the stark fact that young care leavers make up only 1% of the population’s young people but comprise 11% of our homeless population. Or the sobering fact that in different areas of the UK anywhere between 30% and 70% of sex workers are young people that have aged out of care. As I looked around the church building in Leeds I wondered how many of the prison leavers were once young people in the care system: according to the national average 24% of the prison population are care leavers.

We must do better for children who have received the hardest start in life and have been brought into care because of neglect and abuse, and then have to face life without the relationships or skills they need to thrive. Some have been critical about the level of enthusiasm that our politicians showed during this election campaign. Some have been trying to pump themselves up and make themselves appear as people of real passion. Well, I think that the care of the vulnerable is something to get worked up about, and that’s what we want to see happen. I don’t think that a fist-fight in a church is a good idea, but I do think we need to stand up and fight for the needs of the children which our care system is failing, and call on all those with political power to do all they can do to change this.

You can read the Home for Good Manifesto in full HERE.

  • The only sure way to promote the wellbeing of children and protect them from abuse, is by strengthening marriage and family life and promoting a sense of moral living based on selflessness and giving to others.

    • Old Blowers

      “The only sure way to promote the wellbeing of children and protect them
      from abuse, is by strengthening marriage and family life and promoting a
      sense of moral living based on selflessness and giving to others.” Ernst would have wrote “The only sure way to promote the wellbeing of children and protect them from abuse, is by promoting Christ and becoming a believer in Him and to show that by being one it helps with strengthening marriage… ” but that is a minor query. *Chuckles and cackles*

      • Blowers, if men and women followed the natural law and the State promoted and upheld this, children would be protected.
        “All paths lead to Rome” – as they say.

        • Martin

          HJ

          What’s the ‘natural law’? I was under the impression that all were sinners and their natural behaviour was towards degeneracy.

          • The Explorer

            Doesn’t Paul give an example of natural law at the start of Romans? Those without revelation can see the evidence of God in nature. That’s the essence.

          • Martin

            TE

            Romans 1:18-32? I’d have said that was the description of what happens when God removes His restraining hand.

          • The Explorer

            I was thinking specifically of ‘Romans’ 1: 19-21: that God is evident in the natural world.
            Suppose you have a manual for an appliance, but you lose it and have to create one of your own by trial and error. What you come up with will be very like what’s in the manual: it will reflect the intentions of the manufacturer.
            That is the point made by natural law. God’s laws mare not arbitrary. They reflect the way we have been created. Some things are right for us, and some things are wrong.

          • Martin

            TE

            It also teaches that God is evidence in men’s hearts, for they are made in His image. Their very nature teaches them that God exists. All law is God’s law for God made Man to be like Him.

          • Natural Law is the will of God written on every man’s conscience but clouded by the degeneracy and rebellion to which you refer. For example, marriage between a man and a woman for life, for procreation and raising children. It’s moral because it’s God will for us. It also ‘works’ because God has fashioned us to live according to His design – and implanted this in our unfallen natures and in our souls.

          • Martin

            HJ

            You mean the conscience? That part of Man in the likeness of God, that part of Man that causes him to know God exists, is holy and demands of Man that he too be holy? Trouble is, every man is busy destroying and ignoring that, seeking to bury it under the pile of their sin. Mankind will not have this rule over them, they will rule themselves, make a god of themselves. No human endeavour could obey that.

            That, I’m afraid is the nature of original sin, the tendency that man has to do anything other than what God has commanded. What is actually needed is for God to break down the door of men’s hearts, throw out the god in residence there and take up residence Himself.

    • Anton

      Yes, absolutely.

    • Shadrach Fire

      When we say ‘Marriage’ do we need to clarify what type of marriage is meant or do the LBGT lot insist that there is only one type of marriage.

  • Linus

    The Church should be very careful about trying to launch an anti-child abuse crusade given its recent history. Hierarchies won’t want to touch this with a barge pole because it just reinforces the public perception of the clergy as rampant paedophiles desperate to get their hands on more victims any way they can.

    Christians would be advised to stand back from this problem and let secular agencies deal with it. Although it won’t help the children who are already alive, a long term solution would be to make contraception, sterilization and abortifacient medication much more freely available and to promote its use among vulnerable groups. You can’t neglect a child if the child is never born.

    As for the children who are already here and already being abused, some form of government sponsored program that keeps priest and other Christian do-gooders away from the most vulnerable among us (for their own protection, of course) is probably the way to go. Although probably the best choice for the economy, it’s a pity the Conservatives have just been returned as they’re notoriously bad at interfering in anything like this. Their traditionalist mantra of “leave it up to the parents, government interference is always bad” is how you got where you are in the first place.

    • Old Blowers

      “Although it won’t help the children who are already alive, a long term
      solution would be to make contraception, sterilization and abortifacient
      medication much more freely available and to promote its use among
      vulnerable groups. You can’t neglect a child if the child is never born.”

      I take it you are delighted your parents never resorted to such measures, where as those that know you in the flesh… . From a selfish point of view, we here are grateful that you serve as a living example of the joy and example set for other secularissmo adherents to follow!

      • Linus

        My parents were responsible adults who took care of their children and had no need to be absolved of responsibility for them. Many parents are not. Better they have no children at all than abandon them to the care of others.

        In any case, had my parents decided not to have me, I somehow doubt I would be feeling aggrieved right now. I wouldn’t be feeling anything, never having existed. But as things stand, here I am, and aggrieved is the last thing I’m feeling.

        As I survey the world around me, I have every reason to be satisfied. Secularism rules supreme and Christians are reduced to a back-biting rump of bitter and aggrieved bigots who lurk in online ghettos like this one, railing about injustice and crying over the power they so crave, but no longer possess.

        Equal marriage is in place and gay relationships are recognized as morally and legally equivalent to any others.

        The Church is breaking itself apart in a giant schism unparalleled since the Reformation, and has been sidelined as a moral force in every Western nation, even in traditional bastions of Catholicism such as Ireland and Spain. And some of the more underhanded and manipulative tactics used by Christians against the LGBT community, such as “conversion therapy”, are being exposed as harmful and homophobic, and banned by legislatures across the Western world.

        I’m getting married myself later this month. So what more could I reasonably ask for?

        Reflect on that, old bigot, as you watch your body and your religion decay around you and know that when you go, there won’t be anyone left to carry on the fight and all that you value will crumble to dust. And the world will be a much happier place as a result.

        • The Explorer

          I thought ‘Old Bigot’ was my title?
          If we define a bigot as a person who believes some things and doesn’t believe others then aren’t you a bigot as well? You believe that certain views are right and that certain other views are wrong. You have reasons for thinking so, You defend your views and attack others. That makes you as big a bigot as Blowers or me.

          • Old Blowers

            Do I get to join this exclusive Linus appointed club? Is it all secret handshakes etc? *Sniggers*

          • Just remember, Jack is the primus inter pares and has the grand title ‘Sad Jack’.

          • The Explorer

            We could ask Linus to tell us which one of us he hates most, and the subsequent rank order, but he might hate us too much to oblige.

          • The question should be which one of us he fears the most. And orthodox Catholics have a head start in the homosexual hate stakes although conservative evangelists are rapidly catching up.

            The Catholic Church continues to do what she can to obstruct moral degeneracy being embedded in law. Successive Popes have taught it is our duty to resist the legalisation of immorality and, where it has become law, to do all we can to change the law so it is consistent with God’s law.

            The Church has lost moral credibility because of the sex abuse scandal and this is being used opportunistically. However, its well reasoned objections to homosexuality still pose a significant threat to Linus and his co-homosexualists.

          • Linus

            Significant threat? ROFL!

            I refer you to the massive majorities by which equal marriage laws were passed in both the UK and France, and in many other countries around the world. The Church did its utmost to block these laws. Its utmost was utterly ineffective and its defeat was absolute. The impotence of the Church is matched only by its inability to understand that it’s finished as a moral force in society. Priest now means paedophile in the minds of most people. That’s the reality of Christ’s love for most of us. “Suffer the little children to come unto him?” Not likely…

          • Old Blowers

            Sounds like you are quite looking forward to hell. Take Ambler Solitaire sun factor 5 trillion lotion, just to be on the safe side.

            You can never be too careful!

          • Old Blowers

            Good lord,Jack…You sound like Mrs B. It’s always about YOU.*chortles, whilst looking over shoulder and turning off monitor*

          • The Explorer

            Postmodernists are excluded. You can’t qualify if you think all opinions are equally valid. But if you think some things are right and other things are wrong, you’re in!
            But as Jack says below, the next question is where you are in the hierarchy of bigotry. My own impression is 1. The Inspector, 2. Happy Jack, 3. Magnolia. You, Anton, Martin and I are probably 4, 5, 6 and 7, but I’m less sure of the rank order.

          • Old Blowers

            I appear to have become a Full Stop again. Smashing..I get last word!!*giggles*

          • Old Blowers

            Goodness if I am ranked 4th and I have hardly spoke to the
            chap I am in clear and present danger.

            I SHALL DESIST WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT .

            *Battle-stations. Battle-stations alert . Be on the guard for camp anglo/frenchman in pink beret and riding ladies tandem bicyclette with several rows of onions around his neck. THIS IS NOT CLOUSEAU, repeat,THIS IS NOT CLOUSEAU.

          • The Explorer

            You may not be 4th. You’re probably just within the top seven without being in the first three. The lower rank order fluctuates depending on who’s irritated him by posting; and 8 &9 (Clive M and Danny) from time to time make it into the big league. The Inspector and Happy Jack are way out in front, and I don’t think there’s any chance that you or I could catch up. Magnolia’s in a peculiar position in that, as the only woman in the top seven, she seems to induce Linus’ most extreme vitriol whenever she appears. However, since she posts relatively rarely, I don’t think she can be allocated either of the top two spots.

          • Old Blowers

            “You may not be 4th. You’re probably just within the top seven without being in the first three.”

            Phew! *Go back to level 3 all minions*

          • Old Blowers

            ps

            Just as well Linus has never met Cressie.
            She’d just straight punch his lights out and go to confession thereafter to repent.

          • Martin

            Blowers sniggers has a certain ring to it. And I see you add giggles below.

          • Grouchy Jack

            Lol …. the ‘ring’, the ‘ring’.

          • Old Blowers

            CALM DOWN DEAR, IT’S ONLY AN ADJECTIVE! *Chuckles*

          • Martin

            GJ

            Answer the telephone then.

          • Grouchy Jack

            It’s not their hands that they shake. The “etc.” covers it though.

          • Linus

            No, you’re just “bigot” as I have no idea how old you are.

          • The Explorer

            May I refer you to your entry on the previous thread: “Hello old bigot”.

          • Linus

            Oh but that wasn’t “old” as an expression of age, but “old” as in “old boy”, “old fruit”, “old devil”…

            Think of it as a term of … well, not exactly endearment. More like the familiarity that is the mother of the contempt we so clearly feel for each other.

            When it comes to the others though, old means what it says. They are old. And mercifully reaching the end of their ability to trouble others. The day will come soon enough when they no longer will. And then they won’t be old bigots any more, but rather ex-bigots. Former bigots. Bigots who are no more.

          • Old Blowers

            Same as old faggots, we can take it? Yesterdays young chicken hawk is tomorrows old faggot.

          • The Explorer

            Immensely entertaining explanation.

          • dannybhoy

            Anyone who doesn’t agree with Linus is an old bigot…
            🙂

          • Old Blowers

            “That makes you as big a bigot as Blowers or me.”

            OOOh steady on, old boy. You loading the chambers and handing the gun to the scallywag.

            Thankfully the french have a built in aversion to violence and prefer to rather surrender to peace… or is that surrender peacefully? *sniggers*

          • The Explorer

            Not at all. To suggest any affinity between Linus and us is to offer him the deadliest of insults.

          • Old Blowers

            If that’s the case with what you said to him ‘RUUUUUUUUUUUN’

        • Old Blowers

          You silly boy. Every bodies body crumbles, it’s called old age. The faith in Christ never decays, it is a living reality..Outward expressions of religion come and go, they ebb and flow but the strait and narrow path never leads astray.

          “I somehow doubt I would be feeling aggrieved right now. I wouldn’t be
          feeling anything, never having existed.” It would be one less poisoned mind trying to lead others astray but you serve as a terrible example for those that require more from life than mindless play or a world dominated for their own self gratification, come hell or high water.

          ” But as things stand, here I am,
          and aggrieved is the last thing I’m feeling.” You could have fooled us here?

          Take it Le Frog TV is pretty poor for you to be le blogging on foreign soil…You poor soul. Vive le Difference, I say!!

        • The question is, Linus, would you have granted your parents the right to abort you? This is the choice denied every aborted child.

          Think, in a few years time man will persuade himself he has found a ‘gay’ gene or ‘discovered’ a hormonal defect in pregnancy. Then parents will be queuing to abort this mere ‘collection of cells’ and justifying it in the name of protecting their future child from suffering and pain.

          • Old Blowers

            Much more likely they, such as Linus, will discover the ‘Christian’ gene and demand it be aborted!

          • Old Blowers

            Nonsense..Such a collection of cells would be protected by law. Stands to reason, does it not?

            No child should ever be aborted for ANY reason.

          • Agreed, but the secular ‘reason’ that our laws are based on ignore such objective truths. A ‘collection of cells’ does not have any legal rights until capable of survival outside the body.

          • Old Blowers

            Dear fella, My point was that if a ‘gay’ gene was discovered it would be enshrined in Law to be protected, sod the rest, they can be safely ad morally disposed of..It’s a collateral damage thing.

          • Linus

            Quite right. But again, your point is what?

          • Linus

            While it’s clear that most Christian, Jewish and Muslim parents would only too gladly abort a fetus if they knew that it would develop into a gay child, secular society now views homosexuality as a naturally occurring variant of human sexuality and no longer attaches a negative meaning to it. So secular parents have no reason to want to get rid of gay children.

            The genesis of homosexuality is complex and depends on a number of factors, many of which cannot be tested for in utero with any degree of accuracy. So the test you talk about will never exist, except in your imagination, where I have no doubt that all gay fetuses have already been “fixed” (or terminated) by your “merciful” God.

            What particularly galls you is the fact that, up until now, all gay children have been raised in heterosexual families. So we’re like your ultimate failure. But take heart, with developments in reproductive technology, very soon same-sex parent embryos will mean that gay couples too can make their own children, some of which may (shock! horror!) turn out to be straight!

            What better way of losing street cred in the gay community than having a child who insists on conforming to traditional gender roles? A boy who likes blue, a girl who likes pink … ew, Tonka toys and Barbies may even be played with by the gender they were developed for … the ultimate shame!

            So, I wonder … if this mythical test existed, would gay couples chose to terminate straight fetuses to spare them the suffering and pain of growing up in the straitjacket of gender conformity? Your imaginary God, they might even turn out like Sad Jack!!! What better argument could there be for pre-birth euthanasia?

          • No true Christian would ever abort a child, Linus. To do so would be a grievous offence against our Creator.

          • Linus

            Great! So no gay fetuses will ever be aborted then.

            Glad that one’s been settled. So, what point were you trying to make again?

          • Really, we know your mind is elsewhere but do concentrate. The point is that your ideology, far from protecting children in the womb is a justification for abortion.

          • Martin

            Linus

            The genesis of homosexuality is simply the adoption of selfish lust.

          • Linus

            And the genesis of stupidity is the adoption of one’s own prejudices as the absolute truth.

            When did it happen for you?

          • Martin

            Linus

            Strange, there was I thinking you thought you had absolute truth.

          • Linus

            Nobody has the absolute truth. And yet the objective analysis of data allows us to ascertain when something is clearly a lie. Christianity falls into this category. None of the events or miracles associated with it have ever been independently witnessed and verified. There is no proof that God exists. There is no proof that Jesus existed or did anything described in the Bible. As many of the things described in the Bible are clearly impossible (virgin birth, being raised from the dead, conjuring wine into existence from thin air, donkeys having articulate conversations with human beings, etc, etc), and as humans are given to inventing fantastical stories for their entertainment, or as a way of suborning and controlling others, we can conclude beyond all reasonable doubt the the Bible is just such a story.

            Christianity is fiction. You’ve fallen for a fairy story. Is that absolute truth? Well, the existence of a lie doesn’t necessarily shed light on the nature of what the truth really is, although it does allow us to narrow down the possibilities.

            Whatever the truth may be, it clearly doesn’t involve a beardy old man in the sky and his beardy son wandering about in the Middle East, waving his magic wand and turning water into wine and bringing dead people back to life. That’s fantasy, not truth.

          • Martin

            Linus

            “Nobody has the absolute truth.”

            And there we have a claim to absolute truth.

            “None of the events or miracles associated with it have ever been independently witnessed and verified.”

            What you mean, of course, is that no one who doesn’t accept the narrative has said that it is true.

            “There is no proof that God exists.”

            Except of course for your knowledge that God exists.

            “There is no proof that Jesus existed or did anything described in the Bible.”

            Aside from the existence of the New Testament, the Christians, & Josephus’ testimony. But then you reject those as not meeting your test of proof which many other things you believe in would not meet, Evolution for example.

            “As many of the things described in the Bible are clearly impossible (virgin birth, being raised from the dead, conjuring wine into existence from thin air, donkeys having articulate conversations with human beings, etc, etc), and as humans are given to inventing fantastical stories for their entertainment, or as a way of suborning and controlling others, we can conclude beyond all reasonable doubt the the Bible is just such a story.”

            Another claim to knowledge of absolute truth I see.

            “Whatever the truth may be, it clearly doesn’t involve a beardy old man in the sky and his beardy son wandering about in the Middle East, waving his magic wand and turning water into wine and bringing dead people back to life. That’s fantasy, not truth.”

            Curiously that doesn’t relate to what I believe either. Jesus most probably had a beard, most men of his day did, not wishing to look effeminate like the invaders had something to do with it I’d say. Indeed I do, for much the same reasons. But I see no reference to anyone waving a magic wand, indeed magic is not necessary for the God who commands and it is done. Magic, you see, is for lesser beings who must use another agency for their power. That’s if it existed, of course.

        • dannybhoy

          Yawwwwwwn.

          • Linus

            Feeling sleepy? Or just bored with a conversation you can’t win?

            Never mind, why don’t you put your head down? At your age sleep can be elusive, so best to rest your exhausted brain while you can. Who knows, if you get a couple of hours we might even be treated to some lucid thoughts tomorrow.

          • Inspector General

            You cannot talk away your culpability, you know…

          • dannybhoy

            My dear fellow,
            With the best will in the world you do get very repetitive in your denunciations of all things Christian. I thought perhaps by moving onto more social and political issues you might be more balanced and humorous…

          • Grouchy Jack

            “Never mind, why don’t you put your head down?”
            Linus, tsk, tsk, making ‘offers’ like that in public and so soon before your ‘marriage’ too.

          • Linus

            Go visit the Inspector, Sad Jack. Between your obsession with gay sexual innuendo and his desire to fondle testicles, you should get on rather well.

        • Martin

          Linus

          Actually the Church is not breaking apart, we’re just sloughing off those who were only along for the ride. Remember, there is no LGBT community, they are just moral degenerates, mentally sick or both.

          • Linus

            Right, so once you’ve sloughed off the whole of the human race except yourself and those who agree 100% with you, I guess you’ll be raptured up to heaven and the rest of us will start to burn in hell.

            Not to put too fine a point on it, but it’s nutters like you that give Christianity the little bit of entertainment value it still possesses.

          • Martin

            Linus

            It matters not whether people agree with me, what matters is that they agree with God revealed word, the Bible. And of course the Bible tells us there will be those who think they are Christians but are not, even in the best churches.

            If you think that Christianity is about entertainment, then clearly you are of the sort that thought the treatment of the insane was about entertainment.

          • Inspector General

            Indeed, when self discipline was a virtue, where was organised buggery then…

        • Inspector General

          “ah, you must be new-born Linus’ parents. Well we’ve run the tests and he is homosexual. In fact, one of the worst cases we’ve seen. Unpleasant, self absorbed, insulting, fractious.”

          “What will happen to him now?”

          “Well, you’ll take him home with you, won’t you?”

          “If we leave him behind?”

          “We’ll give him to a couple of queers playing happy families. He’ll be brought up as an aggrieved homosexual, with a penchant for being obnoxious. Have you made you’re mind up?”

          “Goodbye Linus. Farewell. Mummy will think of you occasionally. Come daddy, mummy want’s you to climb on top of her as soon as possible back home.”

          • Linus

            And again, the old bigot reveals his lack of intelligence by the indiscriminate use of apostrophes.

            I don’t get angry with the educationally subnormal, poor old Inspector. I just feel pity for them.

    • The Explorer

      Lest we forget what atheist fantasy is capable of, let us remember ‘!20 Days of Sodom’. Four adults and forty-six juveniles: with just the four adults left standing as the ultimate objective.
      I suppose we have to hand it to the secular authorities that de Sade didn’t manage to put more of his philosophy into practice. He did his best when out of prisons and asylums, but the authorities just wouldn’t see things his way, and kept reconfining him.

      • Linus

        And for every Atheist like the marquis de Sade, there’s a Christian like Torquemada and Thomas More, who both fell over themselves to burn heretics alive. More was even canonized for it.

        Atheists don’t have a monopoly on cruelty.

        • The Explorer

          Agreed. You seemed to be implying that Christians did.

        • Martin

          Linus

          Where is the evidence that they were Christians?

          • Linus

            Torquemada was a bishop, which usually means being a Christian too.

            More died with protestations of Christianity on his lips and was canonized for his trouble. Again, pretty convincing proof of Christianity, don’t you think.

            Unless, of course, nobody can be a Christian unless you say they are.

            So who made you the arbiter of Christianity? Are you the Second Coming? Or just a nutter with a messiah complex?

          • dannybhoy

            “Torquemada was a bishop, which usually means being a Christian too.”
            usually being the operative word. We don’t make the rules Linus, we just try to live lives worthy of Him who gave His life for us..
            The definition of a Christian is to be found in the Scriptures not the church interpretations..

          • Martin

            Linus

            Plenty of men, and others, have been called bishops without knowing Christ. More’s career gives no indication that he was a Christian.

            I’m not the arbiter, the Bible is.

            Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.On that day many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?And then will I declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.

            (Matthew 7:21-23 [ESV])

          • Linus

            You’re not the arbiter, the Bible is? And who interprets the Bible? You, by any chance?

            It’s clear to me that what you are is completely off your head. But no matter, it isn’t a crime to be potty. If you decide that your imaginary God wants you to enact his vengeance on his behalf then that would be a different matter and one assumes you’ll be locked up for the rest of your life? But if all you do is maunder along quietly spraying relatively harmless venom over everyone you hate, one assumes you’ll be left in peace.

            Is this the “abundant life” promised to you by your God? You’re welcome to it…

          • Martin

            Linus

            The Bible interprets the Bible & the Holy Spirit enables us to understand it.

            And you know that God exists, so you know God isn’t imaginary. God is quite capable of punishing you, but has plenty of time to do it. When your sin is complete He will give what you deserve.

          • Linus

            Words on a page interpret words on a page, do they? As interpretation is a characteristic of sentience, you’re therefore claiming that the Bible is a sentient being.

            While it wouldn’t surprise me at all to hear that you have long conversations with your Bible, most people would probably be quite startled by such a claim. Does it whisper into your ear and tell you how it should be read? Or is the Holy Spirit doing the prompting?

            The utter incoherence of your statements reveals them for what they are: the deluded ramblings of someone with a very weak grasp on reality. The more you witter on, the more you convince me that you need help. I hope you get it, although as I said earlier, it’s no crime to be crazy, so as long as you don’t actively seek to harm others, the best solution is probably to leave you to your own devices. Which I shall now do.

            Ah well, at least he doesn’t feel any pain…

          • Martin

            Linus

            Of course words on a page interpret words on a page, have you not used a dictionary? And is not a book written by someone with a degree of sentience?

            Sadly you demonstrate you lack of absolute truth in every word you write, despite your claims.

          • Linus

            Ah, I see. So the bible is god’s dictionary, is it? Strange then that there should be so many disputes about what it all
            means.

            But of course, I forgot. You know the true meaning, don’t you? And everyone else is wrong. Unless they agree with you, of course.

            I’m sure there’s a word in English for someone who’s utterly persuaded of his own perfect rectitude, but it escapes me for the moment. It’s not “Pharisee” exactly, although the term does encompass certain Pharasaical elements. It isn’t “Aspergers” either, although again, there are some similarities. “Mindless zealot” doesn’t quite cover it either…

            Oh well, it will come to me eventually. Who knows, if I haven’t stumbled upon it by this evening, I may be forced to look it up in my ancient English Thesaurus, which is a type of dictionary too. Only vastly more reliable than your bible … it actually gives precise and unambiguous meanings to words rather than vague and mystical incantations that mean different things to different people.

            Your imaginary god must hate the scholars who compile dictionaries and thesauruses (thesauri?) They leave no room for the Holy Spirit (a.k.a. blind personal prejudice) to interpret things according to taste and political agenda. And you must hate it too. If we don’t need you to tell us what it all means, we don’t need you at all, do we? And you so clearly need to be needed…

          • Martin

            Linus

            So, tell me, why do you bother to take my comments out of context, misconstrue and spit them out?

            You complain that I don’t represent the true meaning of what you say, but actually I do. As I said, the Bible interprets itself because in reading the Bible you will find the answer to your misunderstandings.

            And then you go on to assume that I am ‘persuaded of my own perfect rectitude’ when I have said on a number of occasions that I too am a sinner, a sinner saved by grace.

            For the Christian, the whole of the Bible is the authority, not just one verse, because in the whole of the Bible is the way of understanding the part. But then you are dead to those things that are spiritual and to you the Bible is a closed book.

          • Linus

            You’re right about one thing: the bible is certainly a closed book to me. I did open it at one point to have a look, but found it so incoherent and implausible that I closed it again. Its rambling imprecations offer no solutions beyond wishful thinking and arbitrary moral choices that use minorities as scapegoats and provide validation for the majority by stigmatizing everyone else.

            When I speak to Christians and listen to their ranting and self-obsessed vision of “truth”, I’m more convinced than ever that their holy book is a complete fraud. If that’s what being “holy” is, salvation’s a mug’s game.

          • Martin

            Linus

            The reason you found the Bible incoherent is not the Bible’s, or it’s author’s fault, but simply down to your spiritual state. You are dead in your sins.

        • dannybhoy

          No one is suggesting that atheists are all cruel people either.
          Some are very good people in the human sense of the word good.
          But I go by what the Boss says good is..

    • dannybhoy

      “Christians would be advised to stand back from this problem and let secular agencies deal with it. ”

      Garbage.
      Secular agencies have proved time and again to fail.

      • Linus

        Ah, so you think the Church’s answer of piling these children into orphanages and letting priests use them as their own private harems is a better solution, eh?

        There are no good solutions for children when their parents give up responsibility for them. Adoption is probably the least worst, but even that is fraught with difficulties and the potential for abuse, pain and suffering.

        Reducing the problem by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is a start, but it will probably never go away entirely. Straights have babies when they bonk. It’s a design fault that we can’t engineer out of them completely, so we have deal with the fallout as best we can. Secular agencies placing unwanted children with well-vetted families for adoption is the best solution for those who slip through the contraceptive filter. Keeping the priest away is vital for the well-being of everyone involved, particularly the child.

        • dannybhoy

          Were all those evangelical Christians I mentioned perverts Linus?

        • Inspector General

          You’re an excellent example of an ‘unwanted pregnancy’….

          • dannybhoy

            Unkind.

        • dannybhoy

          ps

          “Straights have babies when they bonk. It’s a design fault that we can’t engineer out of them completely, so we have deal with the fallout as best we can.”

          I take it this was some kind of joke of the ‘dodoish’ variety?

          • carl jacobs

            I take it this was some kind of joke of the ‘dodoish’ variety?

            ROFL!

          • Old Blowers

            oooh, me ribs. he he he he.

          • carl jacobs

            We should be nicer. Shouldn’t we? I mean .. to think that ‘dodoish’ has become a commonly understood modifier on this weblog is hilarious. But really. We should be nicer.

            Because there has truly been amendment.

          • Old Blowers

            At least said character apologised profusely to the blog here…even if with fingers crossed behind back in LABOUR OATH SWEARING MANNER. *TITTERS*

          • Grouchy Jack

            And you ……….

          • Grouchy Jack

            Feck off ………

          • carl jacobs

            We only abuse you because we like you, Jack. It’s the Code of the Guy.

            🙂

          • Grouchy Jack

            Leave Jack’s pal Dodo alone …. He’s sleeping peacefully.

          • carl jacobs

            Whaddaya yelling at me for. It was dannybhoy that said it. I just laughed.

          • Grouchy Jack

            Grrrrrr ………..

          • Grouchy Jack

            Grrrrrrr …..

          • Inspector General

            Don’t think he’s joking at all.

          • dannybhoy

            He doesn’t know the meaning of absurd either.

    • Inspector General

      We can safely assume, oh suspect one, that ALL sexual abuse of male children is down to homosexuals. So the ‘recent history’ of the church is the ‘recent history’ of homosexuals within it. So, along with working with children, a calling to be a priest should also be denied you. You especially, the Inspector might add, as those who shout the loudest are we find those who commit the greatest…

      • Linus

        So now I’m a paedophile, eh?

        Just when I think you can’t get more vile and repugnant, you manage to plumb new depths.

        See you in hell, old bigot. Bearing false witness is one of those things you’re not easily forgiven, especially when you’re incapable of repentance. Meditate on that as your mind and body continue to decay. You’ll either be in hell or utter oblivion before too long. I’m pretty sure I know which it will be, but either will do, because there’s no way back from one or the other.

        • Inspector General

          You are a SUSPECT paedophile, silly. That’s based on the great volume of self condemning evidence you have provided since you arrived here….

          Would YOU trust yourself alone among boys? No one else here would trust you…

          We need a ‘potential sex offenders’ book for people like you to sign.

          • Linus

            If Christianity is to be believed, were ALL potential sex offenders, so I expect to see your signature on the first page of your book.

          • Old Blowers

            Indeed , who knows whats round the corner to tempt sinners but you just plough on regardless whistling RELAX!

          • Grouchy Jack

            Relax don’t do it
            When you want to go to it
            Relax don’t do it
            When you want to come

            Relax don’t do it
            When you want to suck to it
            Relax don’t do it
            When you want to come
            Come – oh oh oh

          • Old Blowers

            Oh dear, Jack goes to Holyrood.*guffaws*

          • dannybhoy
          • Linus

            Good imaginary Lord!

            I didn’t reply to your earlier comment because I couldn’t for the moment understand exactly what you meant.

            “How does one whistle RELAX?”, I asked myself. It’s clearly a cultural reference I don’t understand.

            But now I get it. And I see that Alzheimers has projected both of you back to the 1980s. Not unsurprising given that it was the era of Thatcher and homophobia run rampant, but still…

            If you have to take refuge in the cultural references of two generations ago, you’ve not only lost today’s debate, you’ve revealed yourself as the ultimate in old, irrelevant and yet still obnoxiously smelly farts.

            When they smell that bad, it’s usually a sign that decay has started from the inside. Prepare yourselves for oblivion, old bigots. It surely won’t be long now.

          • Grouchy Jack

            ROFL …. “obnoxiously smelly farts” ….
            Linus has gone back to the playground.
            He’s a reverted invert.

          • magnolia

            Just still at the anal stage of development, and not yet capable of getting out of that unproductive siding. As ever, prayer needs to help.

          • Old Blowers

            Lets feed the troll and see if he implodes..could be messy? Lets rhyme it old school!

            In the deserts of Sodom
            And the gardens of Edom
            From Brighton to Galloway Bay
            Every person should be gay

            Hit me with your Secularist stick
            Hit me, hit me
            Je t’adore, ich liebe dich
            Hit me, hit me, hit me
            Hit me with your Secularist stick
            Hit me slowly, OOOOOOOOOH hit me quick
            Hit me, hit me, hit me

            In the wilds area of Montreux
            And the public toilets of Bordeaux
            chickenhawko, faggoto
            Move their body to and fro

            Hit me with your Secularist stick
            Hit me, hit me
            Das ist gut! C’est fantastique
            Hit me, hit me, hit me
            Hit me with your Secularist stick
            It’s no nice to be a bigoted lunatic
            Hit me, hit me, hit me

            Hit me, hit me, hit me

            Loved the 70’s

          • Linus

            Go on then, prove your long term memory is still intact by quoting something from the 60s. And 50s. How far back can you go?

            Music from the last decade might be more of a challenge for you though. Short term memory ravaged by disease and decay, eh?

            Never mind. Blessed release comes to us all, and at least you won’t have long to wait.

          • Old Blowers

            All the way back to Jubal and his lyre. You are obviously a fan of Pan and his music for the degenerate masses.

            “Blessed release comes to us all, and at least you won’t have long to wait.” Never knew what the word Blessed Release meant until I stumbled across your pretentious troll offerings. I look forward to it!!!

          • Linus

            How can you stumble when you’re confined to a wheelchair? Your “carers” not treating you like they should?

            Very remiss of them if so. But really, what jury would convict them? Even the calmest of us can be driven beyond endurance when confronted by hatred in its purest form. I don’t even them their task…

          • Old Blowers

            Goodness. You take IG to task for his grammar and you cannot be bothered to check what you post…Inverted commas is something someone has said? SCANDALOUS!

          • dannybhoy

            Linus is really in a ‘fowl’ mood, and says things he doesn’t mean, but like a child wants to provoke a reaction..

          • carl jacobs

            Which, if I might interject, is a good reason to ignore him. These subthreads are not profitable.

          • Old Blowers

            HE IS A TROLL HE IS A TROLL EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE

          • Old Blowers

            It’s a wheelchair joke! Titters*

          • Grouchy Jack

            Wheely? …. asks ‘Nice but Dim’ Carly.

          • carl jacobs

            Would a Dalek say something like “He is a troll.” I don’t think so.

          • Old Blowers

            licence artistique , old fruit! *Les giggles*

          • carl jacobs

            Some things are sacred. One does not take artistic license with the Daleks. And why are you using French, anyways?

          • Old Blowers

            oh FGS…Who was I responding to?? Le athée Linus!

            You sound like a Harry Enfield creation such as ‘ Carl nice but dim ‘.

          • Grouchy Jack

            “You sound like a Harry Enfield creation such as ‘ Carl nice but dim ‘. “

            ROFL ….

          • carl jacobs

            See, but that isn’t the point. Just because you are responding to someone from France, that doesn’t mean you should condescend to using French. It’s beneath you.

          • Old Blowers

            Non, je regrette rien! *les chortles*

          • carl jacobs

            Well, if you insist on using it, then make sure you use it badly. The French are hyper-serious about the French language … probably because no one actually uses it anymore. We can all look forward to the day when French becomes a second language in France.

          • Old Blowers

            Taken on-board, Mon sewer!

          • carl jacobs

            Mon sewer!

            Now, was that called for? You are supposed to do that to Jack. Not me.

          • Old Blowers

            Jack? Sacred Bleu!. Is he french..Do spell le beens.

          • carl jacobs

            I have no independent knowledge of any such scandal in Jack’s lineage. However, I will say this. “There is no such thing as half-French.”

          • Old Blowers

          • carl jacobs

            Like most British attempts at “humor” it managed to provoke a half-smile here or there.

          • Old Blowers

            Then I will accept that as a resounding success fella

          • dannybhoy

            They’re cousins aren’t they?

          • dannybhoy

            You may be right Carl, but I never like to reject a person on the basis that I don’t like what they’re saying.
            However, I will reflect on your comment.

          • carl jacobs

            He isn’t here for interchange. He is here to vent his spleen, to provoke reactions, and to proclaim his general superiority. He does this over and over and over again.

          • dannybhoy

            I do realise that, but I still think we need to make sure our responses are seasoned with love don’t you?

          • Old Blowers

            or humour.

          • dannybhoy

            and humour!

          • Old Blowers

            I stand corrected, bless you.

          • Inspector General

            As the fellow is intent on perpetuating merry rip on Cranmer’s site, one hopes his eminence is considering excommunication, for shall we say, two weeks…

          • Linus

            Beukerk!

            That was me being in a fowl mood…

          • The Explorer

            The Chicken-Little Syndrome is catching. I’m considering a new version for the Twenty-First Century: ‘Chicken Little meets Colonel Sanders’. I don’t want to give away the ending, but what do you think of the concept?

          • avi barzel

            What a perfectly hypocritical turdlet you are, Linus. Whining like the parody of the bitch-slapped catamite in that pseudo-Galic way of yours whenever anyone disses your homo act while you feel free to let go at the elderly and disabled. Twat.

          • Linus

            And here we have the real nature of heterosexual man revealed: his ultimate insult is to call me by the same name as female genitalia.

            I wonder, when your unfortunate mother was pushing you out of her twat, what went so badly wrong that you ended up with such an awful memory of it? And will that question bring upon me the ultimate biatch-slappin’ word in the straight guy’s vocabulary: same thing, only starting with a ‘c’?

            You’re a sick excuse for a human being who hates the very people he’s attracted to and uses descriptions of parts of their bodies to hurl as insults at others. Do you have a wife and does she know you think her twat is the equivalent of a “turdlet”? Let’s hope she wises up to you and gets out while she still can.

          • avi barzel

            A pathetic shot, Linus….or is it Monsieur Twaturdlet? We’re not all Latin, nor psychosexually ravaged to be distracted by “yo’ momma” insults or literalist interpretations of genitalia-based insults. I know you think, in your characteristically self-centered way, that being recognized as a twat (see the definition as applied to fellows like you) and turdlet (this one is meant literally) and outed as such seems like the central challenge of my post, but no, the real challenge still stands: Why do you feel it’s wrong to insult Gays (and evidently, turdlets and twats) but not the elderly and disabled?

          • Linus

            When the elderly and disabled insult gays, if they think their advanced age and handicaps are a shield against retaliation, they’re fooling themselves. He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword, no matter what his age, ability or disability. How’s that for a biblical principle for you?

            This is completely in step with Judaeo-Christian morality. Your fictional God was quite content to strike down the aged and infirm when he unleashed his flood, wasn’t he? Or did they all float to the surface and drift off to some balmy tropical island to live out their days eating pineapples and papayas?

            He who willingly insults the LGBT community will live to regret it. Of course he’ll then cry persecution and if he’s aged and infirm, but no less poisonous because of it, you and your misguided het-male he-man sense of chivalry (if you can find it under the rolls of blubber) will leap to his defence in your self-appointed role of champion of the oppressed. But online we’re all as able-bodied as each other. You can type just as well if you’re confined to a wheelchair as you can if mild obesity is your only health problem.

            Let the poisonous old cripple defend himself. And if you don’t like me using such terms, don’t encourage him to hurl homophobic epithets at me.

          • avi barzel

            I see, so, all this yakety-yak above, with half-hearted forays into advanced biblical criticism, was to say, “He started it!!” ?

          • Linus

            I’m not a Christian. I don’t have to turn the other cheek. He was spoiling for a slapping, he got what he was looking for.

            If you have a problem with that, consult your own holy book. “An eye for an eye” is something your prophets had no problem with, no?

          • avi barzel

            Regarding biblical interpretations, “eye for an eye” always meant that the religious and civil penalties, including monetary compensation for bodily damages, apply equally to all, regardless of personal status or wealth. So, no discriminatory or sliding scales as in modern insurance and law conventions; an eye of a slave is equal to an eye of a High Priest, as we are all created in the image of God. If you have objections to this, take it up as a petition with the Sanhedrin, should they re-convene…God-willing… in our lifetimes.

            Anyhow, a fig for your concern over the dignity of the “LGBT community” (aren’t you missing about half a dozen more letters?). A loose collection of currently untreatable pathologies does not a community make, but that’s a cheap distraction shot, just as your digressions on Judeo-Christian morality, so feel free to ignore it. The only “community” of concern is what you see, here, on this forum. You will, thanks to our gracious host, certainly find liberté here, even fraternité, if you hang on long enough, but forget about égalité; this is an English forum, with all the classist and hierarchical set-ups some of us actually prefer, not a soup kitchen behind a Paris street barricade. Thus,if you have become attuned to the laws of natural selection as it pertains tonewbies like yourself, you should have learned by now who the alpha characters are and that you don’t go around growling at old-timers like The Inspector or Mr Blofeld without having your sorry arse bitten by the first passing beta-level guard hound like yours truly. This is my fraternité bit, Linus. A brief intro to Social Anthropology of Online Communities 101 and a civic-minded attempt to give you an evolutionary leg up, as life’s lamentably short and we don’t have the life spans or the bloody patience to wait for the mechanism of extinction over thousands of generations until your three-eyed descendants get it.

          • dannybhoy

            I liked that song..
            not too sure about your version though…
            🙂

          • Old Blowers

            “Good imaginary Lord!”

            Thanks for the compliment but I am but a reformed genius super villain, that was prone to wickedness like yourself except your sins are not my sins and I did something about it. Think you would rather burn in hell than turn back?

          • carl jacobs

            am but a reformed genius super villain

            Good to see you have left Arminianism behind. Better late than never.

          • Old Blowers

            Reformed as in by the work of the Holy Spirit and not by Calvin or Popery. I am a new creation in Christ Jesus rather than the cobbled together theology of Geneva or Rome like you or Jack. *Holy Chortles*

          • dannybhoy

            Well said sir!

          • Hmmm …. “reformed” suggests the process is completed. Don’t you mean you are undergoing reformation?

          • Old Blowers

            Reformed is a starting point from an historical theological point of view throughout the christian timeline , the rest is sanctification towards glory when we shall be ‘Like Him..Oh happy days!

          • Martin

            OB

            I think Calvin would deny any ability to reform & say that all reformation comes from God.

          • Old Blowers

            A Calvinist will say that believers are “free” to interpret the Bible for themselves, provided they interpreted it exactly as Calvin did. Reminds me of Mr Ford who said you could have his vehicles in whatever colour you preferred, as long as it was black! *snorts*

          • Martin

            OB

            On the contrary, a Calvinist would not say that they are free to interpret the Bible for themselves. The Bible is its own interpreter & the Holy Spirit aids us in that.

          • Politically__Incorrect

            I presume this is Happy Jacks alter ego?

          • Grouchy Jack

            No …. we’re no one’s alter ego.

          • Inspector General

            None of us will consider you safe material until you have your testicles irradiated…

          • Linus

            Obsessed with my testicles, eh? Unsurprising.

            Sorry Inspector, but I’m going to have to turn you down. You’re too old.

            Just think of all the hot sex you could have had (did have?) with all the testicles of your own age group, but were too repressed to have a go (or at least, admit to having a go). It’s too late now. When they’re as shriveled up and invisible as yours must be, their days of partying are long over.

            By all means, dream as much as you like about my testicles. I’ve never been bothered by other people’s fantasies about me. In a way, it’s quite flattering, if in this case, also somewhat hilarious.

          • Inspector General

            Bearing false witness? How could you…

          • Linus

            I’m not a Christian, I can bear as much false witness as I like. I’m not afraid of burning for it. Either I won’t burn at all because there is no hell. Or if there is and I do, a little bit of false witness won’t make things any worse. I’m already going to burn for my heinous sin of loving my partner, according to the Church at least. So what does one more sin matter?

            And in any case, who’s to say it is false witness? Isn’t it common knowledge that any unmarried man over 40 who isn’t a priest (and most of those who are), or who isn’t afflicted by chronic halitosis, or some other such condition that makes him physically repulsive, must be gay? His own declarations on the subject should be taken with a pinch of salt.

          • So long as that’s all he bears. One suspects Linus has a predisposition towards exhibitionism and associated acts.

          • Grouchy Jack

            Is their a salon in Paris you can recommend? He could then have an irrigation along with the irradiation.

          • Linus

            You know so much about it, Sad Jack. Clearly it’s inside information.

            Careful about how much you reveal of your knowledge of the “gay lifestyle”. You’ll get these poor straight old bigots wondering who you really are…

          • Correct. We are all sinners. Knowing that is the first step to enlightenment.

          • DanJ0

            Should we trust a single, never-married man in his 50s who claims he’s not homosexual? A lot of people would look sideways at you, Inspector.

          • Inspector General

            In reality, they don’t. Maybe it’s because your man here does not go around shouting to a disinterested public about uber rights for single men in their 50s.

        • Old Blowers

          In blog lay-mans terms it’s called a grand sweeping generalisation and you should know this.

          IT DOES NOT MEAN IT’S RIGHT.

          A rhetorical statement is a way of eliciting further information to see where you stand rather than being taken as referring to YOU and you alone!
          You refused to answer as such and preferred to imply it solely meant you?

      • Homosexuals have brought the Church into disrepute that’s for sure Inspector.

        • Guglielmo Marinaro

          Homosexuals have brought the Church into disrepute? By Jove, you’re right. Just as heterosexuals have brought Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford – and God knows where else – into disrepute.

          • NO, it was Pakistani men through cultural differences that brought Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford and God knows where else into disrepute Guglielmo.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Yes, of course, Pakistani heterosexuals.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Oh, I SEE. Those men weren’t heterosexuals; that’s just a silly misunderstanding on my part; they were Pakistanis, a different thing altogether. Yeah, got it now. How could I have been so unperceptive?

          • It wasn’t their heterosexual drives that motivated them to groom, rape and traffic young white girls into prostitution, otherwise they would have done the same to Asian girls too. It was hatred of non-muslims that drove them.

      • Guglielmo Marinaro

        So we can safely assume, can we, that ALL sexual abuse of male children is down to homosexuals? Having formerly spent a number of years teaching in boys’ boarding schools, I know from experience and observation just how important that simplistic belief is – to men who sexually abuse male children. They absolutely love it and do everything they can to encourage it. It is behind that smokescreen that so many of them have been able to carry on their nefarious activities for years without falling under suspicion. I would never put anyone with such dangerously naïve beliefs in charge of child protection: any competent, circumspect and determined sexual predator would run rings round them.

  • Old Blowers

    This is a guest post by Dr Krish Kandiah – President of the London School of Theology (Oh, Goodie, Then he should be able to expound his post using such a background for change without using politicspeaky,lets see…) and founding director of Home for Good, a new fostering and adoption charity.

    “I was giving a talk about God’s concern for vulnerable children at a church in Leeds that runs the largest homeless outreach programme in the city. ” Good, which scripture did you quote backing up ‘His Concern’, so that you can state categorically He said it, He means it?

    “Such a fascinating mix of people demonstrated something of church at its best. ” How so? Do expand.

    ” It is so easy to forget the most vulnerable; to forget those without a voice who are victims – even of systems designed to protect them. ” INDEED!

    “As a nation we are failing children who have had the hardest start to their lives. We are failing to provide them safety while they are in care or to leave care equipped for life.” Indeed but what does HE say HE wants us to do?

    “Despite personal reservations about Ukip on a number of fronts (Be fair and state what these were or are they ‘mysterious’ or simply unfathomable to the Conservative Christian mind perhaps?), I must commend them for including this substantial commitment in their manifesto:

    UKIP will reform the care system so the 68,000 children in care in the UK… can find stability through fostering and adoption in a faster, more efficient way. We will extend the provisions of the Children and Families Act 2014, which gives children in care the choice to stay with their foster families until they turn 21, to children in homes, so they too have the same opportunity.(AAAAAHHHH)

    This is difficult to fault as a manifesto promise, but the promise of young people to be able to stay with their foster families is already in place thanks to the “staying put scheme” introduced by the last government.”(But perhaps a surer safeguard was being suggested by UKIP, Hmm?)

    “Some might see various of Ukip’s other policies working against this promise (Do expand, theres a nice fellow), for example plans to withhold benefits to asylum seekers (Dear fellow, most are not asylum sekers but Economic migrants. Did you read in the Times of Malta that Migrants/Asylum Seekers are refusing to be picked up by Maltese authorities as they would be stranded too far from Northern Europe? http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150504/local/migrants-refusing-help-from-maltese-patrol-boats.566735
    debate with us Mr Kandiah??? ) and migrant workers will put more families at risk of not being able to provide for their children and so endanger the wellbeing of more children, potentially bringing more children into the care system.”(Ooooh, it’s that simplistic, is it? What utter nonsense! )

    “In the light of the child abuse scandals of Rotherham and Oxford, it is expected that more of these kind of systematised abuses of children in care are going to come to light in other areas. ” NATCH…’Pakistani/Asian men of origin’,from a religion we must not mention, are everywhere, are they not?

    “We must do better for children who have received the hardest start in life (INDEED!!) and have been brought into care because of neglect and abuse, and then have to face life without the relationships or skills they need to thrive.(Surely you are not going to hold our political parties and socialist claptrap to rask, are you? Thought not!!)”

    “Well, I think that the care of the vulnerable is something to get worked up about (ABSOLUTELY), and that’s what we want to see happen (How???). I don’t think that a fist-fight in a church is a good idea (Some churches seem to attract strange folk but when scripture is not expounded to change those hearts, what can one expect?), but I do think we need to stand up and fight for the needs of the children which our care system is failing, and call on all those with political power to do all they can do to change this.(They cannot stop the sexual exploitation of them by a morally bankrupt society that knows the terms good and evil yet says that good is evil and evil is good and more therefore more desirable and expedient)”

    No theology then? Then what relevance has you being mentioned as the president of a Theological group had on your arguments that you put forward. ABSOLUTELY NONE!!!

    His Grace’s guests who post here can sometimes truly be seen to be of the lowest calibre in expounding arguments for problem that need changing without offering anything of a biblical christian nature. Feel utterly starved spiritually recently as we seem to feel that the problems we face can be changed by the ‘correct’ political stance. THEY CANNOT AND THEY REQUIRE HIS RETURN AND KINGDOM. Anything else is just a sticky bandage until then!!!

    • Blowers, all you had to say was:

      “They cannot stop the sexual exploitation of them by a morally bankrupt society that knows the terms good and evil yet says that good is evil and evil is good and more therefore more desirable and expedient.”

      Jack would have used “we”, rather than “they” … but that is a minor query.

  • len

    The matter of child abuse and paedophilia is a global one affecting all religions classes and societies.To point accusing fingers at one section or another is a pointless exercise.
    Some of the very committees set up to protect vulnerable children have quite spectacularly failed in their attempts and have even contributed to the failure by covering up the problem instead of exposing it. Liberal sexual attitudes and lack of any definitive moral foundation have contributed to the problem of child abuse also the ‘politically correct agenda’ has made people afraid of being branded as ‘racist’ or ‘judgemental’ ( crimes seen by many as almost as bad as those committed by paedophiles)which has helped to cover up these crimes and to give a seemingly sense of invulnerability to criminals.
    As our society moves off its Judeo/ Christian foundations we can only expect our society to further disintegrate as barriers are trampled down in the rush for people to express their sexuality in whatever way they feel they have’ their right to’.

  • Martin

    Interesting, a post on child abuse that does not mention the abuse of children in abortions. You cannot expect people to value children once they are born if they don’t value them before they are born.

    • …. or artificial contraception which preconditions us to see children as a burden to be avoided if inconvenient and not as a gift from our Creator.

      • Old Blowers

        I believe the poster is ‘Kingdom Now’ sort. Hence the lack of use of biblical references here amongst the orthodox evangelical amongst us (plethora of RC’s here exempted, natch *giggles*) to get caught out, ‘we must do it to bring in the Kingdom’ type, whereas it is Christ’s return that accomplishes it ON DAY ONE and not one day before .

        ‘Our King delays, lets start without Him’ nonsense.

        • What’s NATCH?

          • The Explorer

            Naturally. NAUTCH is a much more interesting word: Hindu temple dancer. Female.

          • Old Blowers

            Dear fella

            Evangelicals present Christ to a person, RC’s present Mother church in Rome!

      • Martin

        Contraception, however, does not kill a baby. And there can be many reasons for not wanting to conceive.

        • Define “kill a baby”. The most common forms of the contraceptive pill arrest the development of conceived life and cause its death.
          There can indeed be many reasons for not wanting to conceive and God in His wisdom has given married people a natural method to plan families.

          • Martin

            HJ

            Then that is not contraception but abortion. Definitions lad.

          • True, most modern ‘contraception’ is abortion.

      • Inspector General

        contraception does nothing of the sort.

  • carl jacobs

    Adults decide to serve themselves through fornication, and divorce, and say by means of justification “The kids will be fine.” Except the kids aren’t fine. Do you want to protect children? Then strengthen the institution designed to protect and raise them. Enforce the old rules about sexual continence outside marriage. Make it hard to get a divorce. Create an expectation that adults are responsible to raise their children and not just provide money – that they have to be there. That they have to forego their own selfish desires and fulfill their obligations. Instill in them the knowledge that life isn’t about the exercise of personal autonomy in service to the greater goal of personal happiness.

    You don’t need a massive government program. You need fathers and mothers to do what they are supposed to do.

    • Dominic Stockford

      There was an article, many years ago, in which one girl said of her divorcing parents, ‘If they can do that, I can tell them what I think of them…’

  • dannybhoy

    The ideal from a Christian pov is that children are born of parents who understand the privileges and responsibilities of parenthood as laid down in the Scriptures.
    We are in a war,a spiritual warn which everything that God designed for our happiness is distorted or corrupted.
    The world says that your or my happiness is of paramount importance and that we are entitled to leave no fruit untasted in our quest for pleasure and fulfilment.
    Yet every day we can read of people who have ‘made it’, who ‘have it all’ and remain either unfulfilled or lonely or in despair.
    Not that having this world’s riches is wrong, but to think they lead to salvation and fulfilment is wrong.
    So with children.
    The couple who have yielded their lives to Christ and who seek to live for him will treasure their children and do their very best to look after and love them. As parents their love for each other and their acknowledgment of wrongdoing, bad temper and selfishness will serve as a role model to their children.
    Because the world says my happiness is more important than your happiness we end up with children who are unwanted, unloved, neglected and abused.
    This is the reality of unrepentant human nature. Not that all people are so, but the God of this world encourages them to be so.
    Children yearn to be loved and treasured. Nothing to do with having the best of everything, but feeling secure and valued.
    The great pity is that we now either abort these babies or we look to the State to care for them because we can’t or won’t.
    Look at the great evangelical Christians who founded homes, like Shaftesbury and Barnado and Muller and General Booth and Thomas Cranfield and Thomas Guthrie who were in evolved in the ‘Ragged School’ movement.
    It is a great shame that these Christian movements were taken over by the State..

  • Inspector General

    If there is one thing that truly alarms your Inspector, it is the release back into the community of child sex abusers. Which is why he advocates, on the occasion of a subsequent conviction, that the perpetrators testes by irradiated to such a degree as to render the production of testosterone impossible. Would that it could be done to first time offenders too, but alas, one does believe that despite the nature of their disgusting behaviour, they would still enjoy such sympathy among a weak willed and responsibility abdicating public that it would preclude such a resort in the first.

    • dannybhoy

      I agree Inspector and it’s a mark of fallen human nature that we ‘kinda want to protect the victim’ (cos we ought), but most definitely want to protect the rights of the abuser..

      1 Peter 2:20-22English Standard Version Anglicised

      20 “For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.”

      Even Christians should expect to be punished for wrongdoing.

    • Anton

      Wouldn’t work. The job of eunuchs in eastern courts was not to oversee the harem without risk of seducing them but to oversee them and to satisfy those not involved with the sultan without any risk of conception – which they did.

      • Inspector General

        Look at it as a method to reduce testosterone, which it will…

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Mr Kandiah, you make some good points about the need to protect some of the most vulnerable people in society. I would take issue with your assertion that politicians are only exploiting the plight of these youngsters for political purposes. After all, there anren’t many votes to be gained from it. There are politicians from all parties, I believe, who are genuinely concerned as well as outraged at what has happened in Rotherham and Oxford. The authorities, regardless of any political hue, failed these children miserably. If there is an underlying theme to all this, it is the culture of political correctness, which is a toxic mixture of paranoia over racial issues combined with the paradox of a sexual culture which encourages the abandonemnt of sexual moral values while screaming about the abuse of children.

    We have the media in a state of hysteria about paedophilia at the same time we have people like Peter Tatchell campaigning to lower the age of consent, and Richard Dawkins saying that paedophilia is kind of alright. This all leads to a very confused message. We also have Ofsted saying that children as young as four should be taught about all kinds of sexual behaviour. I would like to see a return to the innocence of childhood, and a respect for that innocence from all parts of society, especially the government.

    • magnolia

      Exactly; beyond time to adjust the balance and insist that adults should behave as adults and stop selfishly making kids take too much responsibility and have too much knowledge too early to make space for their peers’ misdemeanours.

      I agree with the revulsion at politicising the issue. Anyone who knows anything should shop their own political colour as readily as anyone else’s, and there needs to be determined cross party co-operation, which is beginning to happen, but could accelerate.

  • Anton

    “a member of the audience had taken offence at something I had said. He declared himself to be a member and former employee of Ukip and he was quick to tell me that it was the Labour Party and the Conservative Party who were responsible for the recent child abuse cases in Rotherham and Oxfordshire.”

    We all know the professed faith of those who committed those abuses, but it was under the noses of local governments run by Labour and the Tories. If I may ask, Dr Kandiah, what did you say to which he took offence?

    • Old Blowers

      Well done for being brave enough to ask for an answer…I would guess it’s along the lines of blaming UKIP for raising the matter of mindless mass immigration that FORCED the authorities to cover up the incidents for fear of being branded racist little englanders with power.

      Strange that people never shirk from calling the Irish Priest paedophiles Roman Catholic because they were but run for cover under the EdStone when they must state the people and religion RESPONSIBLE for Rotherham and Oxfordshire atrocities..and I ain’t RC by any stretch of the imagination!!

      • Anton

        Krish Kandiah is a brother in Christ and I wouldn’t second guess any reply he makes.

        • Old Blowers

          “Krish Kandiah is a brother in Christ and I wouldn’t second guess any reply he makes.” Is Mark Driscoll or Benny Hinn a brother in Christ?

          Well he hasn’t answered anyone yet so don’t hold your breath in anticipation or else you will end up turning blue like Jack.

          • Anton

            It’s Sunday; might not the Head of London School of Theology be observing a day of rest?

          • The Explorer

            The London School of Theology was once the London Bible College. On that basis, he might well be observing a day of rest.

          • Anton

            I must say I wish it hadn’t changed its name.

          • Ivan M

            Hi Explorer,

            I am sorry to hear of your heart problems. What is the prognosis? Any stents? Sorry if my questions sound very rude. No obligation to answer. It is just that all too many I know are suffering from heart related diseases. Stay safe my friend.

          • The Explorer

            Hello Ivan

            Thanks for the enquiry and good wishes.

            No stents. Not artery or cholesterol related. A chamber of my heart collapsed, inducing heart failure. .Nearly lethal. My refraction index is still dangerously low, but I’m on slowly-increasing medication that should bring about reasonable recovery within a year.

            Good to see you posting again. Regards.

          • Ivan M

            Thank you sir.

          • Old Blowers

            More likely he has drafted a post that he believes has nothing to retort within or discuss and moved on.

            The way of the modern world and the New Labour model of media statement unless you are accidentally still miked, that is?.

  • not a machine

    I was with this post until about the 4th paragraph “I was upset with the attempts to politicise child protection” and then realised it was a rather political thought response .
    There is perhaps 2 problems the one of sex through grooming where lets say its girls (although one cannot exclude boys with recent historic abuse stories reflecting that) where in some cases quite a bit of money has changed to erm how shall I put it , have sex with a young girl , none of these male abusers were caught with older ladies which may have provided a similar service and there is some suggestion that this grooming of young girls involved some quite high profits , never mind what may have gone off under the linked business of trafficked kids. Abuse sometimes took place at £70 a night hotels so hardly your squalid behind a bush or in a taxi job for a bottle of vodka and some cigarettes although it would seem that also occurred.
    It is uncertain whether this rather profitable business had much beyond criminal success or had other meanings , the perpetrators that have been charged have not said much nor said where relevant they may have offended Allah.
    I don’t particular like to mention a total but this now means something like 3000 victims of this abuse system have occurred if one starts adding them up from various cities and no doubt there is a further figure much higher.
    Unfortunately printed articles trying to mitigate with words like “the abusers didn’t see it as coercer ion they thought they were willing participants” perhaps illuminates what the abusers thought, but equally it shows what the writers of these reports are offering up .
    the second point is what the executive failed on children’s care and services and sadly this has been around for many years , it isn’t so much that social care does not have some good help for troubled kids/teenagers/families its the fact that it also has rather a lot of things (so loved by the last government) that haven’t worked out some things properly . lets be clear this area can be difficult full of angers hiding sorrows and sorrows hiding angers , to think that children can be circulated in the system for harm to target them , is something new to me .
    However we then have to consider how this tragedy unfolded politically and so we have something new (or perhaps not) in that the suffering of children was buried or steered away from local blame for political reasons . Let me just run that past everyone again children’s suffering was buried or steered away from local political blame (and it appears to be mostly labour boroughs) . I am outraged at forced deaths in hospitals and even the careless ones where management group think has quashed vocation ,although in saying that , you do have to think about those close to end of life. But the coercion of children into sex is a whole new low , in what politicians can think. I don’t expect to find politics clean , but I would have thought a group knowledge (even though all deny it) on a matter of child exploitation as a good business , someone rather than none of the 30 odd on one council had the guts to say this is wrong , yet none did and followed the party line .
    there are many like Mr Kandiah , I comment too but what is hard to believe is how some people get into very paid positions in this area only to pursue such poor work and yet claim it matches the wish list as provided above of correct beauorcracy.nothing wrong in having a think about making things better , but it might have been better if he had mentioned that the last 20 odd of years of high socialists beurocratic wonk has led to this , as something of a failure. Or if he had refered to the loss of the importance of the family as giving balance and instruction that may be better than state edicts .
    Labours destruction of the family whether by tax or in softening the line for the church or having a very powerful social work mouthpiece and group think , one might think allowed this to happen , but then you would have to believe in family (a view now weakend in all flavours as single aspiration is all the currency and rage) and in Christ , perhaps as they look through the ashes of this election ,those new in power will not forget to consider other causes (rather than vote shame) that are also down to politics of the last 20 yrs .

  • Owl

    I am trying to get my head round the governmental attacks on Family values over the last number of years and this appeal for more support for the children.
    Financial support or more social workers getting involved isn’t going to solve anything.
    Families may not be perfect but they are still a damn sight better than the alternatives.
    I don’t recall anyone making a fuss when Elton bought his last child. Plenty of Money about and he can buy a few nannies if required. Problem solved….. or problem created?

    • carl jacobs

      They are destroying the obligations and restraints that allow the nuclear family to function as intended, They are doing it to serve the selfish autonomous interests of adults. (For example, “Why should I stay in a marriage that makes me unhappy? I’ve met my soul mate, and it’s totally a coincidence that she is 15 years younger than my current wife. From whom I have drifted apart because … well … it’s not the stretch marks. Besides, the kids will be fine.”) Anyways, the gov’t is predictably experiencing the problems associated with destroying the institution designed to raise and civilize children. But instead of re-considering its preference for adult autonomy, it’s trying to create programs to do what the nuclear family was intended to do. Except they don’t work.

      The Left has been trying to destroy the nuclear family for 300 years. They see it as an inherently patriarchal, conservative institution. The consequence will be the destruction of the precondition for limited gov’t, prosperity, and state power. So there must eventually emerge in its wake a pro-natalist gov’t to fix the catastrophe being created. But it won’t be liberal. And it won’t be Christian. The tragedy of this present age will be found in how it must end. The homosexuals who presently promote their freedom are eventually going to be dragged out of their gay bars, and sodomized in the street with 12 ft sharpened poles.

      As for us, they will be cutting us in half with saws.

      • Inspector General

        Either the voting public were so alarmed at the prospect of Miliband becoming PM, or they are sick and tired of Labours tax and spend credentials. Probably a bit of both, but this reassuring shift to the right England has undertaken has to be encouraged for it to stay that way. The easiest solution is to let people keep more of what they earn. There just isn’t the sympathy out there today to throw money at the piss poor, usually the authors of their own misfortune. Perhaps it will encourage the children involved to do better than their parents
        generation. Plenty of scope there…

        • Owl

          IG, the reassuring shift to the right would be more encouraging if Dave and Co. hadn’t taken such a gigantic shift to the left.
          As Dave made clear, he sees himself as the successor to Blair!
          Blair has been seen as many things but not as wishing to conserve the good in society.
          LibLabCon are the enemies of Family life, they only disagree, slightly, on how to achieve this end.
          Big Society is just another name for Big State. We know where that ends up.
          I hope that after Nige has had a couple of pints, he will get back in the ring and come out fighting. There’s now 4 Million of us rooting for him and what he represents (numbers will be be sharply increasing once the coming disillusionment with Dave sinks in).

    • Martin

      Owl

      Of course the once ‘tax relief’ given to families with children has been whittled away over the years until it effectively does not exist.

      • Owl

        part of the plan, old son.

  • Shadrach Fire

    The best way to help vulnerable children clearly is a very important issue and I would question the social services ability to cope adequately with this. There have been any number of very damning reports in recent years where their decisions have left the public aghast.
    I can’t see how anyone can say that a baby adopted by gay parents can be for the good of the child.
    As Jack and Blowers have said earlier, the only hope for the nation is the strengthening of marriage and the spread of the Gospel.

    • Amen S.F. Strengthening marriage is the key.

      The problem is that because of various tragedies for which Social Services have been blamed, they are very quick to take children into care. There is a Christian family in East London where this has happened although there is no evidence of any abuse whatsoever, but because the family is Nigerian and Christian, all the Social Services can think is Victoria Climbie. The family has been broken up for nearly six months now, much to the detriment of the children and the despair of the parents.

      With regard to homosexual parenting, readers might like to peruse this:
      http://www.evangelical-times.org/archive/item/7293/Ecclesiological–amp–Pastoral/Redefining-marriage/

      • Linus

        Divorce is hard on kids. It’s hard on parents too.

        No doubt the bitter woman who wrote that article has issues. If her husband had left her for another woman, she’d be railing against whores and husband-stealing second wives. She’s a woman with an axe to grind, that’s clear enough.

        The fact that custody of the children was given to her husband and his new partner who then became his husband should alert us to the true facts behind this case. Courts don’t remove children from a primary caregiver, be it a mother or father, without very good reason. Clearly this woman has massive problems and is using her husband’s new relationship as a scapegoat for everything that’s wrong in her life.

        I should imagine the poor man couldn’t get away from her quickly enough and, what’s more, he felt compelled to protect his children from such a malign influence. The judge agreed. One assumes that he or she had much better access to the facts of this case than we do. And based on those facts, he or she chose to deprive this woman of the custody of her own children. There must have been a reason for that, and one that this unfortunate woman just isn’t telling us, probably because it doesn’t reflect very well on her.

        Of course Christians will say she’s a saintly and innocent mother whose children were ripped from her by evil gays. That’s the script you’ve written and every case has to conform to it. Thank your imaginary God we live in a civilized world now where your predetermined outcomes and fictitious moral imperatives no longer control our lives.

        • Well I notice that the lady has put her name to the article, so she doesn’t fear the U.S. libel laws. So her children are exposed to their Dad and his ‘friends’ parading about in ‘sex-bondage straps’ (What are they? I must lead a very sheltered life), suspenders and what-not. I think she’s entitled to be a bit angry.
          .
          When people get married, they make vows about ‘for better for worse, for richer for poorer.’ In most marriages that calls for sacrifice and perseverance. Your attitude seems to be ‘dump the old cow as and when you feel like it.’ I hope your inamorato is aware.

          • Linus

            Persistent unreasonable behaviour is sufficient grounds for divorce. Marriage is not a licence to behave with complete disregard for everyone around you. Just about Western legal jurisdiction recognizes this, although fundamentalist Christians probably never will. All the more reason never to marry a fundamentalist Christian, no?

  • carl jacobs

    Hrmmm. Well, there is good news and there is bad news. The good news is that Man City has five points on Man U with two matches to play. So Man City will finish ahead. But it also does not seem like Liverpool has much chance of pushing Man U out of the top four.

    Ah, well. We can always hope. It all starts with a good thrashing by Arsenal.

    • Happy Jack will ignore your silly comment. The future beckons. Next season will see a resurgent Man United.

      • carl jacobs

        My, my, my. Has the tune changed so radically in just a few months?

  • Grouchy Jack

    ‘Nice but Dim American Carly’,

    Manchester United have won:
    – 20 league titles, the most of any English club;
    – a joint-record 11 FA Cups;
    – four League Cups; and
    – a record 20 FA Community Shields.

    The club has also won:
    – three European Cups;
    – one UEFA Cup Winners’ Cup;
    – one UEFA Super Cup;
    – one Intercontinental Cup; and
    – one FIFA Club World Cup.

    Furthermore, In 1998–99, the club achieved the treble of the Premier League, the FA Cup and the UEFA Champions League.

    Care to share the successes of Manchester City? It’s on Wiki and won’t take very long to research. When Manchester City, currently a team of fading old men, win back to back titles let Jack know.

    • carl jacobs

      So … has Man U ever scored two goals in stoppage time in order to win a championship? Because I am pretty sure Man City did just that. I imagine that ol’ Grump might have watched that match, and enjoyed it quite alot. He probably won’t ever forget that experience. It’s the kind of thing that happens only once in lifetime.

      I can’t remember though. What was the club that was going to win the Championship before those stoppage time goals? It’s right on the tip of my tongue, but just can’t remember ….

      • The very next season Manchester United bounced right back and won the Premiership. Character Carl – in victory and defeat. That’s what makes Man United truly great. Once that gets into the fabric and tradition of a club it always comes through, no matter the occasional set-backs.

        An American would support a team who claimed victory right at end of a match and then boast for evermore – it’s what you’ve done in two world wars on the backs of the British.

        • carl jacobs

          Oh, was it Man U that had victory snatched away from its thirsting lips right at the very last possible second in the most painful way possible? I couldn’t remember.

          Speaking of WWII, btw. How brain-dead do the Socialist Worker’s Party minions have to be to deface a WWII memorial right on top of the 70th anniversary of VE Day? The Left. If they aren’t shooting a class enemy in the head, they are shooting their own foot off.

          • Grouchy Jack

            We all know the socialist left are numpties, ‘Nice but Dim’ Carly.

            Do not attempt to change the subject from the fleeting (and lucky) success of Man City in a couple of seasons, compared with Man United’s sustained quality over years. Or the exposure of the tendency of Americans to wait to see who will win before joining sides.

          • carl jacobs

            We al know the socialist left are numpties.

            But you … but they … but … weren’t you …

            In any case, I wasn’t changing the subject. I was responding to your insertion of the wars into the conversation. And if we did decide to wait to see who would win, we weren’t very sagacious in our choices.

          • Grouchy Jack

            American character is the subject …. always back a winner and never fight unless success is assured by superior force (or use the French when necessary).

          • carl jacobs

            One of us has greater familiarity with France than the other. “Cough Cough”

      • Grouchy Jack

        You must be terribly disappointed Man City failed (again) to win back to back titles. Any idea who their next manager might be?

        • carl jacobs

          No, not disappointed at all. One must set realistic expectations when it come to sports. They can’t win every year.

          • Grouchy Jack

            Yes, it’s good to have low expectations where Man City are concerned.

          • carl jacobs

            Still mad because I laughed, huh?

          • Grouchy Jack

            Attempting to change the subject again Carl?

          • carl jacobs

            Yep. Still mad.

  • Old Blowers

    Oh dear.

    His Grace recently retweeted this “Brilliant news Iain Duncan Smith will have the opportunity to see through welfare reforms. A long term legacy of this government.”

    As will be bombing Libya towards democracy..’It was for their own good, Honest’.
    They never do what’s right, only what seems easiest and expedient at that time.

    You really have to set aside your Christianity and humanity to go after the genuine poor, disabled and elderly. NOT what Mrs T would have done!!

    • Are you moving towards Catholic social teaching with its “preferential option for the poor”, Blowers?

      • Old Blowers

        I am immovable in the gospel relevance of righteousness towards the genuine who need help.

        You do not have to be catholic, protestant or free church to recognise this, do you.

        However you can set aside those principles of righteousness by lumping all together and shafting at will those truly in need.

        It’s called lazy administration and deceitful behaviour..We investigate and deal with the evidence revealed and as stated, Mrs T was not of this current conservative ilk.

        They all quote her name as an example or attached to her principles and then completely misrepresent who she was and what she did. Immoral chancers!

    • Ivan M

      Cameron’s Libyan freedom fighters were last seen hunting and raping men in Cambridge. Something is simply not right with the Libyan adventure. If there is any justice in this or the afterlife, I hope that Cameron and all those responsible pay heavily, for their wanton destruction of a functioning (after a fashion) country.

      • Libya was a prospering country before Cameron and the frogs bombed it on behalf of the Yanks,
        and got rid of Gaddaffi who stopped the flow of African immigrants to Europe and kept the various terrorist factions under control.

        • Ivan M

          Gaddafi did remind the likes of Cameron that he had kept his border controls to the mutual benefit with Europeans, but to no avail. At one time before the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Kaddafi was the face of Islamic terrorism. But that was some forty years ago during Mrs T’s time. He had since mellowed and was sufficiently cowered by George Bush, that he gave up his alleged nuclear program in 2003. The European vandals Cameron and Sarkozy visited carnage on an enemy on the mend.

  • Phil R

    A 1996 study by an Australian sociologist (Sotirios Sarantako) compared children raised by heterosexual married couples, heterosexual cohabiting couples and homosexual cohabiting couples. It found that the children of heterosexual married couples did the best, and children of homosexual couples did the worst, in nine of the thirteen academic and social categories measured

    The solution it seems is rather simple.

    Strengthen traditional marriage.

    A good and easy way to start would be through the tax and benefits system.

    • Linus

      The Australian study compared children whose parents had been divorced and were now living in same sex relationships with those who had always lived with their married opposite sex parents. When the test compared like with like, i.e. children of divorced parents who were now living one parent in a same sex relationship, and children of divorced parents who were now living with one parent in an opposite sex relationship, there was no difference in outcomes.

      Crucially there was also no difference in outcomes when children who had always lived with same sex parents were compared to children who had always lived with opposite sex parents.

      Same sex marriage does not hurt children any more than opposite sex marriage, and the proof of that is overwhelming. Divorce and remarriage of ANY kind does seem to have a negative impact on children. But then so does living with warring parents.

      If you want to protect children from the harm that parents can do to them whether they divorce or not, you’ll have a hard time finding a solution. I sometimes wonder whether children haven’t become Christianity’s new idol. We’re all supposed to be imperfect because of original sin (or whatever Protestants call it) and yet when you become a parent, nothing less than perfection will do. But your children aren’t perfect, so why should you be? Why do these imperfect children deserve perfection? They’re not God. They’re just imperfect individuals like everyone else.

      Straight parents mess up their kids’ lives just like gay parents mess up their kids’ lives. And the kids of both straight and gay parents mess up their parents’ lives too. Divorce may be an element that is statistically likely to make the mess even bigger than it usually is, but in a sea of crap, what’s one more drop in the ocean?

      • Phil R

        The Australian study you quote has been harshly criticised for the way the samples were collected.

        In short the study you quote is meaningless.

        A real sample of heterosexual parents of various incomes with known outcomes for their children were compaired to generally well off gay parents (I.e two males) who self selected themselves for the study and self reported the wellbeing of “their” children.

        • Linus

          The study I quoted was no more harshly criticized than the study you quoted.

          Only because you quoted it, it must be the absolute truth, eh? A bit like your fraudulent religion.

          And there we have it: absolute truth as determined by the overweening ego of the religious zealot. “It must be true if I believe in it” is not an objective viewpoint and can therefore be dismissed as hopelessly biased opinion.

          Scores of studies that show no difference in outcomes between same-sex and opposite-sex parenting would be dismissed by you on trumped up charges of faulty methodology because your world view requires them to be wrong. That’s the reality of dogmatic religious belief. Never let reality stand in the way of a theological fantasy.

          • Phil R

            “Scores of studies that show no difference in outcomes between same-sex and
            opposite-sex parenting”

            No there hasn’t. The problem is that same sex parenting is relatively rare (thankfully) and so getting representative data (with a large enough sample size) is difficult.

            There has however, been studies comparing outcomes for children in “non traditional” households. (So all non traditional, single parent, mutli parent, homosexual, poly etc are grouped together and so a reasonable and compatible (in terms of income, city/countryside etc), data samples can be created.

            Study after study shows that they fare worse on every indicator, (school achievement, taking drugs, criminal involvement. self perceived happiness (Rather than what invariably happens is that studies involving Gay parents they self report the happiness and achievements of “their” children etc).

            The best outcome for children is by far (up to 20 times better) the data shows, is a traditional hetero family structure where the parents do not divorce.

          • Linus

            All the studies you point to have been funded or sponsored by conservative pressure groups looking for one outcome only. They’re about as reliable as the “research” done in the 60s to “prove” that smoking was harmless.

            When research is tailored to ensure one outcome only, it loses all credibility.

            I refer you to the fact that your studies are not accepted by government bodies or professional associations. Only Christians and other social conservatives point to them as “evidence”. Nobody else will touch them with a barge pole.

            At the end of the day, the argument has already been settled and your side has not won it. Gay couples can adopt pretty much across the whole of the Western world now. Many countries also allow medically assisted procreation and even surrogacy. Public bodies are satisfied that gay parents are just as good as any other and their desire to found families should not be frustrated by a tiny minority of social conservatives waving ther dubious and biased studies in an attempt to force the state to discriminate against a minority they hate.

            You’ve lost the fight, poor little bigot. Just like you lost the fight against equal marriage. Rail all you like against the “injustice” of a majority deciding what the law should be. It won’t make any difference.

          • Phil R

            “When research is tailored to ensure one outcome only, it loses all credibility.”

            No the statistics do not have any credibility in the ways that they are currently collected for Gay parents. I understand the researcher’s problem. They are under pressure from (ususally) some Uni to find there is no difference in outcome and anyway the samples of gay parents are too small at present.

            ” the argument has already been settled and your side has not won it.”

            Time will tell Linus.

            You won a battle perhaps. Now you have to behave in the territory you have won. Can you really do that and more to the point will “your kids” let you. There is increasing evidence that many brought up by gay “parents” desperately yearned for both a mum and a dad. Some have gone so far as to call it child abuse.

            We shall see what the future holds. As you constantly claim we evolve and that means variations that don’t work are discarded.

          • ken

            “No there hasn’t. The problem is that same sex parenting is relatively rare (thankfully) and so getting representative data (with a large enough sample size) is difficult.”

            yes. there have been many studies that show same sex parents are just as capable as opposite sex parents. Now, you are correct that due to the sample sizes no single study can be considered representative of the general population. However, because of the numerous studies (with many different samples) most professional psychological and medical organizations have taken the position that gays should not be barred from being parents.

            “Study after study shows that they fare worse on every indicator,”

            Specifically which studies are you referring to? And how did these studies determine it was the gender of the parents involved and not other factors (ex. loss of one or more parents, divorce, etc) that contributed to these worse outcomes?

            “The best outcome for children is by far (up to 20 times better) the data shows, is a traditional hetero family structure where the parents do not divorce.”

            The problem with these sorts of statements is that it leads people to avoid dealing with the real problems and just assume an overly simplistic solution is “the answer”. for example, in this statement, there is an implicit (and likely wrong) assumption that if the parents didn’t divorce the children would be better off, and there is no evidence of that. You have no evidence that forcing the parents to stay together would be better for those children then the effects of the divorce.

          • Phil R

            Taking aside for the moment your acceptance of the surely questionable notion of including statistics from Gay parents that can and do self report the outcomes as they perceive it for “their” children. No account of income is taken into consideration but these are compared with real outcomes for non gays and all are lumped together. So Hetero non divorced of equal income are not comoared with gays. Gays are compared with the whole society. So that the right answers are found, they self report their outcomes.

            You have no evidence that forcing the parents to stay together would be
            better for those children then the effects of the divorce.

            The evidence is that non divorced parents have better outcomes than non traditional households. Statistics do not and should not do “what ifs”

          • ken

            While some studies rely on self-reporting by parents others do not. Further, some do take into account incomes and others do not, as well many other variables. You don’t seem to understand the breadth of the various studies into parenting and how succeeding research is designed to build upon the previous studies. For anyone who is serious about learning what the research has to say I would recommend reading: “Lesbian and gay parents and their children :
            research on the family life cycle”, Goldberg, Abbie E.

            It is a survey of the last 20 years of research into gay parenting, published by the APA.

            “The evidence is that non divorced parents have better outcomes than non traditional households.”

            Yes, in general that is true, however, that doesn’t prove that the children of divorced parents would be better off if their parents hadn’t divorced. While it is true divorce can be detrimental to children, you are presuming w/o evidence that being raised by parents who no longer wanted to be together would not be worse. As an extreme example, take the case where the divorce occurred because the husband was abusive, I’m sure even you can see how it the parents staying together for the children could be worse than the divorce.

          • Phil R

            You seem to be linking two issues that are not linked. Divorce harms children, you seem to accept that so we need to make every effort to support marriage with effective reconciliation and counseling and support rather than massively penalise married parents through the tax and benefits system.

            The other issue of gay parenting the issue is not settled. Partly as data samples are small, many are unreliably obtained and there is pressure to get the “right” answer a fact. This gay commenter has serious concerns about the current culture that favours gay parenting.

            http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/07/kids-need-a-mum-and-a-dad/

          • ken

            While encouraging married parents to stay together MAY be helpful for the children in some cases, in others it may not. My point is your focus is too broad. There are many children who do quite well after their parents divorce and many children who do poorly when their parents do not divorce. If the goal it to help children, then you need to delved deeper than saying “statistically children of married parents do better than children of divorced parents”, because that won’t lead to any implementable solutions that will help children.

            :the current culture that favours gay parenting.”

            How does the culture favour gay parenting?

            Further, lets assume research proved conclusively that same-sex couples did worse (on some quantifiable set of measures: level of education obtained, delinquency, substance abuse, emotional adjustment, whatever) at raising children. What would you propose be done with that information? What policy decisions (if any) would you suggest be put in place?

          • Phil R

            “What would you propose be done with that information? What policy decisions (if any) would you suggest be put in place?”

            We proved that drinking and driving were a bad combination so we acted.

            On your other point.

            We have to go with the data. Marriage works for kids so we should encourage and support it. The data shows that all other options are at best a poor second for children

          • ken

            Again, I’m asking you what your suggestions for what the actions should be?

          • Phil R

            If you want to help children thrive you support heterosexual marriage.

            Currently we say we want the best for our children but make it extremely expensive to be married with children.

            Policy decisions. Make sure that heterosexual marriage pays financially.

          • ken

            Not sure who the “we” is, it certainly isn’t the case in the US that anyone makes it more expensive to be married with children than any other arrangement with children.

            And what do you suggest be done about the children being raised by parents who are not married?

            What if research also showed that children of same-sex parents, who are married, do better than children of same-sex parents who are not married, would you then support same-sex marriage?

          • Phil R

            Ken

            The benefits and taxation system makes it considerably more lucrative for couples with children not to be married. Depending on circumstances this can be a minimum of £4000 and an upper limit which could in exceptional cases be a difference of £20000 or more.

            This offers a real disincentive to be married and a real incentive to divorce. After a divorce, in many cases both parents may experience an increase in income. The average difference is around £10000

            For your final point. I see what you are getting at and it is clearly a logical deduction. However, I do not agree that some sex relationships whether married or not are conducive to human flourishing.

            Let me ask you a question. Do you agree with the gay author in the link I posted above and again here?

            http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/05/07/kids-need-a-mum-and-a-dad/

          • ken

            No, I don’t agree with that author at all. I think the article is little more than propaganda. For example he states: “mother whose child has been taken away from her, even though the baby
            was not at risk of any harm, and given to a gay couple with whom she had
            a surrogacy arrangement” However, nowhere in the article does he mention that one of the members of the gay couple was the babies biological father. I.e. it was a custody dispute between the biological mother and the biological father. the author also gives a bunch of misleading/stereotypical representations of gay men and finally sites the discredited Regnerus study.

          • Phil R

            I do not agree.

            An article from the Huffington Post UK puts the point very well

            “Inevitably the breakdown of a surrogacy arrangement leads to an acrimonious dispute where everyone genuinely feels that they have the moral right to the child. Until now the convention that prevails in the UK has been based on the sensible approach of treating the woman who
            gives birth as the legal mother. Even if a woman uses donor eggs and sperm if she has given birth to a child she is rightly recognised as not just the baby’s mother but her legal mother. If she gives the child to the people involved in the surrogacy arrangement she opts to cease to exercise her right to motherhood but until that point she is the legal mother.

            There are very good reasons why the woman who gave birth
            must be considered to be the legal mother with full rights to keep her child. Once the moral relationship between a birth-mother and her child can be trumped by a transaction than relation between parent and their
            offspring can become subject to a variety of corrosive forces and
            pressures.

            Decent societies recognise that the relationship between mothers and their babies is special and unique. A humane and civilised society understands that this relationship should be protected
            and insulated from forces that would disrupt it. It also grasps that whatever cash transaction was entered into by the different parties it can have no moral authority over the decision taken by the mother concerning the future of her new born child.

            The relationship of a
            woman to her pregnancy can and does change from conception to birth. For some the experience is disruptive and they may become estranged from it. Others experience pregnancy in the opposite manner. Many who
            agreed to hand over their baby to another party at the start or who have had an unwanted pregnancy develop a strong attachment to the child-to-be they carry in their stomach. That is why society must be open to allowing women who give birth to decide whether or not they can
            keep their child.

            Although we live in a market economy most sensible people believe that babies should not be for sale. Whatever the commercial arrangements made by the contracting parties it does not guarantee that upon the delivery of a baby it will be handed over to them. A baby should not be treated as a chattel. This point is recognised in UK lawwhich bans any form of commercial surrogacy.

            ‘Bad’ mother have rights too”

            Full article

            http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/frank-furedi/a-baby-is-not-a-chattel_b_7241406.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

          • Phil R

            For a more detailed analysis of gay parenting. (e.g. one study made claims of “no difference” based on a sample of just 6 gay (male-male parents!)

            http://www.academia.edu/10436121/Emotional_Problems_among_Children_with_Same-sex_Parents_Difference_by_Definition

          • ken

            what is your purpose in citing the Sullins article?

          • Phil R

            You seem to argue in the post above that it was right for the mother should not have rights in surrogacy. The

            Frank Furedi article argued effectively for the mother’s right to her child and to stop children becoming chattel to be bought and sold.

            The Sullins article in the introduction, summarises the criticisms of data collected to date on gay parenting.
            (e.g. tiny sample size — 6 in the case of gay men– unscientific reporting techniques — gay parents self reporting how well adjusted their children are. etc etc)

          • ken

            “You seem to argue in the post above that it was right for the mother should not have rights in surrogacy.”

            No, that is not what I’m arguing at all. I was pointing out how the article failed to even mention that one of the gay men in question was in fact the biological father. Instead, framing the argument to make it seem like a completely unrelated gay couple was coming in to snatch a child away from her biological mother.

            “Frank Furedi article argued effectively for the mother’s right to her child”

            While deceptively and effectively hiding the argument about a FATHER’s right to his child. For this and many other reason’s I consider the article little more than a propaganda piece designed to push the author’s personal point of view rather than give the reader enough information to allow the reader to have an informed opinion about the situation. I don’t intend to debate it with you any further. However, if this article is representative of the quality of your information sources, then I suspect you are mis-informed about a lot of things.

          • Phil R

            I am sure that we are all misinformed about many things.

            However, in my opinion a mother who is breastfeeding a baby should not have her baby taken away from her and given away without the hope of every seeing that child again nor being able to talk about her experience.

            “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”


            George Orwell,

            1984

            The trouble is that Orwell didn’t imagine even half of it.

  • Mike Stallard

    Congratulations! This is Christianity in action. Well done.
    Down here at the bottom, we see a very different picture, do we not!
    We could easily make the family courts more public so that the judges do not just do whatever they feel like at the time and create disaffection. Arbitrary justice is not good.

  • Natalie

    When diagnosing the root causes of child abuse, one often discovers an environment that protects or even subtly encourages the abuser. That’s because abusers seek out such environments.

    Consider the recent ‘children in the dark’ episode at All Saints Church in Ealing, a description of which is contained in a report sent by the church’s ex- churchwardens to the office of the Bishop of London. This hitherto charming, tolerant little church has been overwhelmed by Bishop of Willesden Pete Broadbent’s evangelical ‘planting’ programme, which he promotes so proudly on his blog. His new plants, a wife and husband vicar team from Derbyshire, have proven quite toxic, yet the Bishop backed their every activity, despite a mass exodus from the church, and clear evidence of bizarre and unpleasant behaviour that ran back to the plants’ previous activities at St Peters Church in Belper.

    When the churchwardens raised concerns and documented the evidence, ‘Thundering Pete’ dismissed them as part of a ‘complainant PCC’. He saw the churchwardens as obstacles to his ‘Mission’ to install an intolerant evangelical über-authority at the church. The churchwardens have been replaced, as have the PCC members who objected.

    Nevertheless, departing PCC members documented the youth group episode. My understanding is that Broadbent’s plants had barred parents from observing youth group activities but one evening a non-churched parent arrived early to pick up her child and found the church hall area to be empty. She heard muttering from behind the stage curtains and discovered the children, in darkness, engaged in a holy-ghost-summoning session. She removed her child permanently, as did others, to another church. Three PCC parents then confirmed events through recorded discussions with their own children. Some of the children were quite upset. The parents concluded that the sessions lasted around 15-20 minutes. They also removed their children. Concerns have subsequently been raised about the vicar’s inappropriate physical contact with vulnerable individuals at the mencap coffee mornings. When challenged, the plant-vicar, claimed that she and her husband were doing god’s work.

    Now, here’s my point. Successful abusers are often grandiose, deluded and thoroughly manipulative individuals who seek out a haven that will enable their devious activities. Hierarchical institutions that vest authority without transparency or accountability are their best targets. We should learn from the case of Father David Pearce, the former head of nearby St Benedict’s junior school (also in Ealing) who was jailed for eight years in 2009, after being convicted of abusing boys over a period OF 36 YEARS. Over this incredible period of time, many complaints were made, and quietly ignored. Many more people knew, but did not think they would be heard. The abuser will always be clever to pick malleable targets fearful of authority. A problem for the Catholic Church only?

    The Church of England should set an example before it is too late. The Willesden Diocese should be investigated for its responses to the concerns of the All Saint’s PCC. Broadbent’s suppression of information provided to him by the Derbyshire parishes should be investigated. Do we want the Church of England, by virtue
    of its weak governance to provide safe haven for hypocritical bullies? If so, look no further for evidence of why the pews are really emptying. Abusers learn to structure the environment around them to suit themselves. Broadbent may not be a molester but he is most certainly a secretive bully, hiding behind fake charm, who condones activities that would be completely unacceptable in any modern organisation.

    • Phil R

      Very interesting Natalie.

      I am not sure what you mean by fundamentalist in this context as in the Cof E that can mean a whole range of belief.

      Hypocritical bullies? Please expand

    • Ian G

      Whatever you may think or believe, this is defamation.