There is an interesting Populus Poll in the Times about ‘Broken Britain‘. There aren’t too many questions, but what we can deduce is disturbing.
The first few questions indicate that people are more optimistic than pessimistic about the future, but when it comes to the situation today, the glass is half empty.
64% of respondents said that Britain was going off in the wrong direction while 31% thought that Britain is on the right track, however the same poll also has 30% of respondents saying they would vote Labour if there were a general election tomorrow. Does this mean that it is the Labour voters who think Britain is on the ‘right track’? Well, 35% of them said we are on the wrong track and 54% think that society in Britain is ‘broken’. Even after thirteen years, the connection is obviously lost on over half of Labour voters.
This means that it’s not just Labour voters who think everything is hunky dory. Bizarely, 22% of Tories think we are on the right track (yet 94% think it is time for a change; presumably the other 6% who said they were Tory voters lied??).
A third of Labour voters would emigrate if they could. They didn’t say if that was before or after they had yet again cursed their country with their vote. ‘I’m all right, Jack.’ That’s socialism for you. Slightly more (38%) Tory voters said they would emigrate, but we all know they are selfish anyway. According to New Labour.
Four percent fewer women than men think that we are on the right track, four out of ten think that their children’s lives will be worse than theirs and three-quarters think Britain is broken. So much for the überfeminist agenda that they thought would make life better for them.
The biggest sigh of all came when I read that 82% of the total said it was ‘time for a change,’ and yet 90% intend on voting LibLabCon in the election. With all this talk of electoral reform, I would like to suggest that a basic IQ test be given to everyone on the electoral roll. Maybe see if they can tie their shoelaces as well. It’s not even ‘turkeys voting for Christmas,’ is it? A bird that was allowed to live and had witnessed the carnage every December would eventually get wise to the fact that when the tinsel and fairy lights come down from the loft, it’s time to find a really good place to hide, but the turkeys who vote Tory and Labour, particularly, are so cemented in the basic left/right tribalism that they cannot read the signs, while the LibDems think they are free of all that, but really, the are all voting for the same thing.
If most people (73%) think the country is kaputt and 60% are looking to the future with optimism, who are they expecting to change things around? The people who broke it in the first place? It’s like asking the proverbial bull in the china shop to dress up a shop window with a display of Royal Doulton. It’s never going to happen.
If Britain is broken, what is the glue that will put it back together again? As far as government goes, if there is an answer, then it surely lies somewhere in the ‘others’ who, at present, only one in ten intend voting for and it includes at least one or two parties I wouldn’t want to form a government.
Is it too early to start running around the streets shouting, “We’re all doomed”?
Pink Floyd front man David Gilmour, Chrissie Hynde, Bob Geldof and Gary McKinnon sing Graham Nash’s Chicago.
This is a plea to Barack Obama to come from Chicago and help Change the World and to allow Gary McKinnon to have his life back.
Thanks to the wonder that is Twitter, Gary’s mum Janis Sharp tells me that Graham Nash gave her permission to change the lyrics to appeal to Obama. She says that Chicago was about Graham Nash appealing to Stephen Stills and Dave Crosby to join him in protest against the unjust trial of Chicago 8 protestors.
When I was at school, I learned about the great British men and women who changed our country and the world into a better place to live. There was William Wilberforce, who ended black slavery and the prison reformer, Elizabeth Fry. There were the great inventors, many of them Scottish, of course (the list is far too long to reproduce here!). There were the famous generals and admirals who fought off invading armies and navies. We read the poetry, novels and plays of gifted writers.
Not once, that I recall, were we told about their sexual behaviour.
Well now, thanks to Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender History Month, children can now learn who the famous men were who preferred to have sex with other men and the women who had sex with women. And of course, the men and women who were so promiscuous that they had sex with both genders.
It is at times like this that I feel I must have entered a parallel universe; one where the normal laws of space, time and nature have either been abandoned or changed so that this makes some kind of sense.
So what is the idea behind it?
As far as parents and teachers are led to believe, it is to help ‘LGBT’ people become more accepted and less prone to bullying.
The real purpose, of course, is to further promote lifestyles which are at odds with civilised, healthy society.
Ten years ago, Brian Souter’s private referendum in Scotland on Section 28 resulted in 7 out of 8 people who voted expressing a wish to retain this piece of legislation which protected children from such predation.
The vast majority were ignored, as usual, in this ‘democracy’ of ours and now their children and grandchildren are being brainwashed in the effort to make them ‘celebrate’ homosexuality. Just look at this from the ‘Tool Kit for Schools‘ on the LGBT History Month website:
Heteronormativity
Assertions that normal people are white, able bodied, young, middle class, heterosexual, male and Christian are endemic in so-called western societies. This results in subtle or declared barriers that affect/disadvantage people on the grounds of prejudice against anyone outside the norm (with regard to gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, age, religion and belief, class and/or disability). Any disadvantage accrued by those ‘outside the norm’ is blamed on the person the ‘normal’ people see as ‘different’, that is, different from them or not ‘normal’.
This is what it is really about – totally re-engineering society. Notice how many of these ‘normal’ people are under attack in this so-called equality drive.
The elites don’t want ‘normality’, they want dysfunction. They can control us easier that way.
This is why our society has been engineered to hate Christians and pander to other religions. Many secularists and humanists think this is great, but they are too dumb to understand that the foundations of their culture and freedoms are being attacked.
New Labour has admitted using immigration to re-engineer society. Now we have reports of police forces being ‘too white’ and Parliament is ‘too white’. Even Radio 4 is ‘too white’.
The middle class must be wiped out because they are a major inconvenience to the success of socialism.
Feminism, which some say was created by the CIA specifically to destroy society, has indeed empowered women to sit at a typewriter, sewing machine or supermarket checkout for forty hours a week, while their children are dumped with strangers until they get home and it’s time to feed them, do the washing up and the other chores, then collapse exhaustedly into bed.
It’s not empowerment, it’s just another kind of slavery. With men and women at work, the state gets double the tax and has more access to your children to fill them with notions like heteronormativity, which was coined in 1991 by homosexual writer Michael Warner.
One of the people worthy of celebrating is Tom Robinson. Apparently. I remember his classic 2-4-6-8 Motorway, but he’s hardly a historical figure is he? Ah, but he did sing Glad to be Gay, but then became bisexual and a father, and it’s all this personal detail that gets the attention. That’s because this isn’t about History, but about promoting homosexuality.
UPDATE: Richard Borrett left a comment about ‘The Overhauling of Straight America‘, which is a sort of blueprint for homosexualising the USA and the tactics explained in it have been successfully imported into the UK and elsewhere. Part of the plan is very pertinent to the above post. Their agenda was to:
(4) Make gays look good. In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know — this trick is so old it creaks. Other minorities use it all the time in ads that announce proudly, “Did you know that this Great Man (or Woman) was ________?” But the message is vital for all those straights who still picture gays as “queer” people — shadowy, lonesome, frail, drunken, suicidal, child-snatching misfits.
The honor roll of prominent gay or bisexual men and women is truly eye-popping. From Socrates to Shakespeare, from Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, from Michelangelo to Walt Whitman, from Sappho to Gertrude Stein, the list is old hat to us but shocking news to heterosexual America. In no time, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.
Ah, so here’s the reason for ‘equality’ in churches: to drive men away. Ruth Gledhill writes in The Times,
Real men don’t like going to church because they don’t want to “sing love songs to a man”, because the “vicar wears a dress”, because they feel like “mongrels on parade at Crufts” and because they want to be waited on by women rather than queue for coffee after the service.
It sounds like they asked some very strange men. Some churches here, like the local Gospel Hall and the Free Presbyterians, will have the ladies bring tea and biscuits to your seat after some services. In other churches, however, you have to fetch it yourself. Oh, what hardship!
Loving the Man who died for you is kind of the point of going, unless you just fancy sleeping through the sermon then having a cup of tea brought to you. Or not.
I don’t go to churches where men wear dresses, but I can see that this could be a problem with blokes who are unsure about themselves.
“Mongrels on parade at Crufts?” No, you’ve lost me there. In all the different churches I have visited, I have never been expected to run up and down a ramp then jump through a tyre. Not even in the Mormons.
A number of distinctly non-pc ways to get men back into church are among those being advocated by a charity, Christian Vision for Men, which has discovered that the Church has lost nearly half of its men aged under 30 because it has become too feminine.
The charity admits some of its ideas might not be seen as politically correct.
Good, you’ve got my interest.
But on a questionnaire on its website aimed at finding out why so many men have left church, they suggest a number of ways of making men want to return to church again.
These include redesigning the interiors of church buildings to make men feel more at home.
Instead of the usual flowers and statues of the Virgin Mary, they suggest, “How would it go down to decorate with swords, or pictures of knights, or flaming torches?”
Or nude calendars? Formula One cars? Wayne Rooney? Replicas of submachine guns?
The charity continues: “Maybe it’s not ‘politically correct’, but men quite like the attention of women! They also like to be waited on – so long as they are not made to feel guilty. Instead of having to queue for coffee, why not ask some of the women to go round with trays of coffee and biscuits or chocky bars? Coupled with a charming smile, many men would find that very attractive!”
Perhaps they could wear revealing clothes and blow in their ears?
Then there are the hymns, or modern worship songs, themselves.
Now, I agree with this. Some of the modern ‘hymns’ are horrible. There’s no fight in them. They’re as limp as a very limp lettuce leaf.
Quite apart from the sheer embarrassment of having to sing out loud when the tune might go too high or be in an unfamiliar key, the charity advises clergy just to look at the words.
“Jesus, I am so in love with you,” or “Beautiful one I love, beautiful one I adore,” – many men wouldn’t sing that to their wives, let alone another man, the charity advises.
It continues: “The image of church is ‘women and children’ – action songs or kid’s plays just emphasise this. The decoration is often very feminine – flowers, embroidered banners. The vicar often wears a dress… It can be embarrassing to be next to someone in uninhibited delight of worship, or in tears.”
Avoid them. Or say, ‘excuse me, I’m British and we don’t show our emotions in public in my country.’
Men don’t want to feel brainwashed by reciting words that they don’t believe: “The language can be offputting, even the word ‘love’ has undertones of the love of a man for his woman – they’d rather ‘admire’ or ‘respect’ another man. Think how they will respond if called to be Jesus’s lover, or to be ‘intimate’ with him. Don’t play into Satan’s hands by using language that he has corrupted.”
Let’s be honest. They don’t want to go to church, do they? These excuses are along the lines of ‘the dog ate my homework.’
Among the changes recommended by Christian Vision for Men, a member of the Evangelical Alliance, is to use the World Cup to boost falling congregations. The charity wants vicars to erect big screens above the pulpit during this summer’s World Cup in South Africa and even serve beer during games.
Carl Beech, General Director of the CVM and Baptist Minister, said: “The World Cup is when pretty much every bloke in the country bonds over a common goal.
“Why can that not be done in a church? The decline has been steady for a while but has accelerated over recent years.
So, you’ll get some lads coming in for the footie and a few tinnies, then they see the bloke in a dress and make a sharp U-turn.
“The problem has become male culture versus church culture. Too many sermons talk about Jesus’ love, compassion and grace which are great but not male concepts. Men want to know about his great decision making and leadership. That is what they recognise. Churches are very pastorally driven whereas blokes are looking for decisions not discussions. The breakdown in most churches is now 70 per cent women to 30 per cent men.”
More men than women go to the Free Presbyterian church I sometimes visit, but then, they haven’t sold their souls in order to be PC-compliant. And the ministers wear suits, not dresses. There isn’t even an ArmaLite or lump of Semtex on display. Or kick-boxing on the big screen.
And when did ‘love, compassion and grace’ cease being ‘male concepts’? Christ said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
Hardly a lily-livered effeminate concept. I wonder how many of these men who are afraid of a man in a dress and who want waited on hand and foot would lay down their lives for their friends.
Most of the apostles were also killed by various horrible means for their beliefs. Real Christianity requires real men. If your church is lily-livered then those are the only men you will attract.
The charity, which also recommends subjects as “pornography” are discussed in church men’s groups, has also launched two Christian-themed men’s magazines in a further bid to lock into male culture.
Bishop of Lewes Wallace Benn admitted there was a problem. “The relatively small number of men in our congregations is one of the pressing issues facing the church today.
Maybe get the vicar out of a dress and into a nice comfy pair of slacks?
“Within our Christian concern for all ages, both sexes and every ethnic group, we need to address reaching men with the good news of the Gospel as a key concern.”
The Church of England have tried to address the slump in the last five years by encouraging services to be held in alternative venues such as skate parks, coffee shops and pubs under their “Fresh Expressions” scheme.
A spokesman said: “It is of concern. We do know there appears to be a higher proportion of women to men in church.”
Right, this is what you do: drop the PC baloney and preach the gospel of repentance. Transform your church into a place where men will want to come to worship their Creator. Sing proper songs of worship that are full of passion. It’s not hard. Show some football if you like, but that in itself isn’t going to convince anybody to be a Christian when the rest of the setup is corrupt.
I got the operation so that everyone has to bow down to talk to me. Now maybe you understand why I couldn't bow at the Cenotaph. Everyone must bow down to me... muhahahaha.
With more and more people becoming wise to the lies and disinformation of the environment movement over climate change, Prince Charles has tried to redress the balance by insisting we ignore the recent reports of manipulation by those we trusted to tell us the truth on the matter.
The heir to the throne raised the controversy in a speech in Manchester, where he launched a new initiative, called Start, to provide the public with advice on how to lead more environmentally sustainable lives.
The Prince had chugged through half of England in the Royal Train, which was pulled by a steam locomotive spewing out masses of CO2 into the air.
He continued: “But to those who seek to persuade us that there is no such thing as climate change, in the face of the now overwhelming peer-reviewed scientific evidence, I would ask just one question. Are you prepared to take the risk of being wrong?”
When the alternative is to be impoverished, spied upon and taxed to death while the elite swans around as they always have done, then yes, I am prepared to take the chance that the data didn’t need to be falsified.
Like Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, Dave will just not be able to leave people alone to live their lives free from government interference. When millions of people are crying out for an end to control, monitoring, form-filling, targets and political correctness, The Times’ Ruth Gledhill reports on Dave’s interview with ‘gay’ magazine Attitude…
Cameron tells award-winning journalist Johann Hari that ‘our Lord Jesus’ would back equality and gay rights if he were around today. He says he doesn’t want to get into a row with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. ‘But I think the Church has to do some of the things that the Conservative Party has been through – sorting this issue out and recognising that full equality is a bottom line full essential.’ He also introduces a new phrase to the English language, one that might be current in High Tory circles but not one I’ve heard before, in reference to Muslim women: ‘Blowing the hijab off them.’
Ho ho. And we all thought he was a politician.
He is a politician, but I’m unsure whether he’s a Blairite or Brownite.
Cranmer begs to differ: if ‘our Lord Jesus’ were around today, there is nothing at all to suggest that he would be remotely interested in talking about ‘equality’ or ‘rights’ at all.
He would be preaching the gospel, in season and out, and calling on people to repent of their sin and prepare for the coming of the Kingdom.
God discriminates! The rain may fall on the just and the unjust, but blessings flow to those who are faithful. Christ chose to spend time with sinners, forgiving them that repented, while condemning the Jewish leaders because of their hopeless condition. Not a lot changes. By all accounts, Cameron will be as hopelessly out of touch with reality as the current PM.
I left this comment on LabourList yesterday about Cameron, whom Labour love to tease about his record on ‘gay’ rights’ and watch him squirm as he tries to make excuses for his previous ethical standards:
Now that he is no longer a conservative, but another puppet for Big Pharma, the EU, globalisation, climate change fraud, etc., he blows with the wind. If there’s a few votes to gain, he’ll be ’spearheading’ a campaign for the Tories to renounce more of their beliefs and leave their integrity in shreds in order to accommodate a philosophy which is alien to them.
Clearly, he imagines that the millions of Tory voters will continue voting for them regardless, because they want rid of New Labour.
It’s about time they taught him a lesson about respecting your core vote; something Labour should also have done, rather than take the longsuffering man-in-the-street for a mug.
More good news for lovers of freedom as Harriet Harman decides not to overturn last month’s Lord’s vote that saved religious organisations from being forced to abandon their values and hire homosexuals for key positions.
Ministers were astonished on Monday when the Pope said that the Bill violated “natural justice” and urged bishops to fight it. But that attack, along with the strength of opposition in the Lords and the limited time left to get Bills passed before the election, has sapped the Government’s enthusiasm to continue the fight.
Who knows, maybe with the election just around the corner, some bright spark in the government has realised that there are many more Catholics than homosexuals. I’m sure that ‘natural justice’ didn’t figure at all in the decision.
In her blind allegiance to ‘equality’, Harriet Harman, Hater of Harmony, obviously couldn’t see that a homosexual preaching about the importance of sexual morality would be rather irrational. But her government thrives on the irrational, especially when it comes to ‘equality’.
Why should people who choose to behave in a certain way receive so much attention anyway? We don’t get adulterers demanding to get a job in a church. Should I, who disagrees with New Labour’s philosophy, insist on getting a job with one of their MPs? Would I be accepted for a job with Stonewall? Not after they had Googled my name, that’s for sure.
I would be discriminated against for my beliefs in many places and rightly so because I don’t conform to their ethos.
I cannot see that churches are singled out for ’special’ treatment other than the fact that they are churches and this government has proven how much it hates Christianity.
Because the Pope has expressed an opinion, and he’s not supposed to because he is the head of a church and is expected to keep schtum, the National Secular Society is upset and is planning demonstrations during his visit to the UK in the Autumn.
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: “The taxpayer in this country is going to be faced with a bill of some £20 million for the visit of the Pope. A visit in which he has already indicated he will attack equal rights and promote discrimination.”
Their version of events is that he will attack equal rights. But he is trying to preserve his church’s freedom to employ people who share its beliefs. What business is this of the NSS, other than an excuse to attack religion, which seems to be their raison d’être?
The truth is that ‘equality’ which suits secularists is an impossibility because it forces people to accept things that they vehemently oppose. The government knows this and is using the resulting chaos to create tensions in society so they can ruin all our lives while we fight among ourselves.
Quite a lot. Labour made a manifesto ‘promise’ to continue to allow smoking in pubs where food wasn’t served. They lied about that and so people have to stand outside if they want a cigarette. Now the Health Secretary, Andy Burnham, also wants to ban smoking in walkways and near the entrances of buildings. Of course, this will increase the demise of the pub trade as even more people decide to stay at home where they can smoke.
But if you smoke, don’t get too comfy in your own home, because the government wants to ban you from smoking in your house and your car if you have children.
It doesn’t take a genius to see that what naturally follows from this is a total ban on smoking in all cars and all homes at all times and from the ban on smoking outside buildings, to smoking outside, period.
So, no smoking inside and no smoking outside. Burnham really doesn’t want us to burn ‘em. (Sorry.) Of course, tobacco products themselves won’t be illegal because the government needs the vast tax revenue. Maybe they reckon that because smokers will have one or two problems trying to find a place to smoke that is neither inside nor outside, that there will be huge scope for issuing fixed penalty fines and thus smokers, as well as funding the NHS, will also be able to pay off the national debt.
Another idea that has been doing the rounds for a while, presumably to condition us to get used to the idea before it is written into law, is for all cigarettes to be sold in plain packaging.
Lastly, he [Burnham] wants to force tobacco companies to drop brand artwork. “Now that we’ve banned advertising and will soon see an end to attractive displays in shops,” says Mr Birdbrain, sounding smugger than a human really should, “the only remaining method of advertising tobacco is the packaging.” He wants to see only plain fag packets in the future. As if that will make a single smoker think: “Oh no! Twenty cigarettes with no mention of the words ‘Marlboro Lights’ anywhere! I’m so horrified, I will cease this filthy habit immediately.” Andy, seriously, if you’re desperate for a cigarette, issues such as artwork don’t come into your head.
Will that be the end of it? Of course not. The little sadists will soon insist on cigarettes being sold singly rather than in packets, to be taken home in brown paper bags, like mushrooms.
Are the tobacco companies worried?
Imperial Tobacco also responded to the UK government’s new Tobacco Control Strategy, which endorses the plain packaging of tobacco products. The company said that it remains strongly opposed to the strategy and that it believes there is no credible evidence that young people start smoking or adult smokers continue to smoke because of tobacco packaging. According to Imperial Tobacco, making all tobacco products available in the same generic plain packaging will further fuel the growth in illicit trade and undermine the government’s plans to increase investment in tackling smuggling and counterfeiting.
And wouldn’t you know that the government is also trying to ‘crack down’ on smugglers of cheap cigarettes?
Good old New Labour, they’re not just there for the nasty things in life. Well, actually, they are. Here we see more of their planned legislation that is contradictory, won’t work, is draconian and that nobody voted for.
Some people even want smokers to be required to pay for a licence before they are allowed to buy cigarettes. No doubt there are also plans to licence drinkers and fast-food junkies.
Yet another comment has been left on this blog accusing me of being what I am not:
This is the most awful, hate filled blog I have ever read.
No doubt there are some who would consider this a compliment, nay, honour, but not me, because it is not what I am about. Sarah Miller’s comment was in relation to my views on homosexuality. There is a false doctrine which has spread far and wide in the past few years which says that you mustn’t criticise somone’s sexual behaviour otherwise it is ‘hatred’ because God made them that way and there is nothing they can do about it. Many churches are also preaching this damnable heresy.
The point is that Christ died for sinners. I am a sinner. We all are. I once made this comment on an article on the Daily Mail’s website, to which one irate woman replied, “Excuse me Stewart Cowan, but I am not a sinner”.
Yeah, right, and I bet her farts smell like honeysuckle blossom.
The point is that none of us is perfect and it is sin unrepented of that keeps us from a holy God. Christ died to bridge this gap between a sinful world and a perfect Heaven; to deal with sin, death and Hell once and for all for those who follow Him.
Sarah Miller goes on to make the common mistake of confusing judging with warning.
So you see, to alert a brother or sister to the wages of sin, is an act of love. I have already been threatened with having my words recorded as a ‘homophobic incident’. If I didn’t care passionately about the salvation of others, I wouldn’t risk bringing trouble on myself.
Recent Comments