Police shame as they arrest preacher for his THOUGHTS
Here is proof of how far ‘diversity’ indoctrination has destroyed the capability of some police officers to think rationally. Think at all, really. Especially plastic plods. What a nice idea to dress up truly stupid members of the public in police-like uniforms and have them arrest people the government doesn’t like. The coppers in the video below weren’t even just obeying orders, they are completely brainwashed drones.
Dale McAlpine was preaching in the centre of Workington, Cumbria, when he was approached by a PCSO, who told him he was a liaison officer for the local lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) ‘community’. Now, Mr McAlpine had not mentioned homosexuality in his preaching, so I can only assume that the LGBT PCSO was looking for trouble.
This was the conversation:
“He told me he was homosexual,” Mr Mcalpine said.
“I said ‘the Bible says homosexuality is a sin’. He said ‘I’m offended by that and I’m also the LGBT liaison officer within the police’.
“I said ‘it is still a sin’.”
He said three uniformed police officers then appeared and accused him of using homophobic language.
“I’m not homophobic, I don’t hate gays,” Mr Mcalpine said. “Then they said it is against the law to say homosexuality is a sin. I was arrested. It’s crazy isn’t it?”
The Marmalade Sandwich notes that the constable making the arrest says,
“It is against the law. Listen mate, we’re pretty sure. You’re under arrest for a racially aggravated Section 5 Public Order offence.”
Wow. Not just a Section 5 Public Order offence, but a racially aggravated Section 5 Public Order offence.” Oh dear.
Notice, by the way, that Dale McAlpine was aware of Lord Waddington’s amendment (attributing it, in the pressure of the moment, to Lord Carey), and of the meaning of the word ‘homophobia’. The constables involved don’t seem to have been quite as clued up.
See how completely the ‘authorities’ have been made to believe that disapproving of somebody’s sexual behaviour is the same as racism? The homosexual activists jumped onto the racism bandwagon decades ago for this purpose.
You could be mistaken for thinking that the LGBT ‘community’ is now in charge of law and order in the UK. Peter Tatchell defended the preacher’s right to free speech and writes,
Soon after I offered to appear as a defence witness and to argue in court for Mr McAlpine’s acquittal, the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case. The sudden withdrawal of charges may have been mere coincidence but perhaps not.
No, perhaps the police do whatever someone from the homosexual lobby says. After all, their flag can be seen flying from police stations now and then, like this one a few days ago in Salford, filmed by Richard Carvath…
Can anyone think of any other special interest pressure group the police fly a flag for?
Mr Tatchell continues,
Although clearly homophobic, Mr McAlpine did not express his opinion in a way that was aggressive, threatening or intimidating.
I am surprised and shocked that the CPS allowed the case to proceed at all. The Public Order Act is meant to protect people from harm. Dale McAlpine’s views are misguided and offensive but I see no evidence that they caused harm to anyone.
The problem with this is that aggressive, threatening or intimidating are subjective. Unrepentant sinners will spend eternity in Hell. That’s pretty threatening and intimidating. And Mr Tatchell believes that Mr McAlpine’s views are misguided and offensive, yet a great many people, homosexuals included, think that these words describe his beliefs.
Tatchell also writes,
I urge the Home Secretary, Theresa May, to issue new guidelines, making it clear that the police should not arrest people for expressing prejudiced views in a non-threatening and non-aggressive manner. Prosecutions should only proceed in extreme circumstances. The police should concentrate on tackling serious, harmful crimes, such as racist, homophobic and sexist violence.
Every sentence is loaded. He didn’t need to include the word prejudiced in that sentence. He defended the man’s right to free speech – but only within limits which nobody can be sure about.
If anyone from the police reads this blog, and I know that you do as I see .police.uk in the stats, please note that criticising a person’s lifestyle choice is not illegal, however homosexual acts are what are known as crimes against nature. They used to be actual crimes too until your masters’ brains became fried on political correctness. You have to question why you joined the force if you are prepared in any way to behave like the officers in the video.
““It is against the law. Listen mate, we’re pretty sure.”
Well, which is it? Against the law, or ‘pretty sure’ it’s against the law?
Hi Julia,
As it turns out, neither.
All we will see is an exponential increase in the amount of numpties that become Police Officers and PCSO’s, as anyone with an ounce of decency will either a) Not want to join the politicised para-military organisation known the ‘Police Service’ or b) They will attempt to join, in the hope of making society a better place, and be rejected at the first interview for having racist, homophobic, islamophobic and right wing opinions.
The same is true of those who make the law (politicians), as they cannot say boo to a goose for fear of losing their seat or being deselected, and also those who are meant to administer justice (the Judiciary), for exactly the same reasons.
This garbage is self perpetuating and we are past the tipping point; the UK is finished.
Unfortunately, English, I think you are right – we have reached the point where all this trash is self-perpetuating.
I would have been there and defended this man’s right to preach his evil nonsense. After all, if you arrest this man for preaching the bible, then every church in the land, and every mosque, and bookshop, must be prosecuted for promoting antisemitism in 1 thess 2:14-16, as well as homophobia, xenophobia, genocide in most of the made up rubbish in the old testament and that rag tag of verses in the koran, itself plagiarised from your holy book. The persecuted individual in question of course, is a creationist – a crackpot by definition – brainwashed by ‘Living Waters’ (Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, famous for their ridiculous banana video to emphasise intelligent design). If this man is arrested, my fun in ridiculing him – a moral necessity, one of the few verses that makes sense in the bible is Matt 10:22 – is taken away, and his route to salvation is compromised as a result.
Given my potential freedom of expression is curtailed too, should I sue too?
Adrian T,
1 Thess 2 v 14-16 were spoken by a Jew and are factually correct. In what way are they ‘anti-semetic’?
PS The modern day obsession with attaching the suffix ‘ophobia’ on to words in order to invent new crimes does not automatically make the thing an actual crime, nor the Libtard that chants it correct.
I don’t think you can prove that the words attributed to paul of tarsus are ‘factually correct’ – hearsay at best, especially since there is scant evidence for any Jesus of Nazareth. But the burden of guilt travels down through the generations, as christians have reminded the jews for the last two thousand years.
Well I would rather think massacre of the Amalekites, the Midianites and others, slaughtering all the men women and children (while the virgins are raped, Num 31:18), was somewhat deserving of condemnation – to a rational mind of course. To a religion drenched mind, such behaviour (even though the events described in Numbers and elsewhere were pure fiction) is the normal thing to do – as evidenced all over the middle east today.
Adrian T,
Please make your mind up; either the Bible is fiction and therefore cannot be quoted as evidence of one peoples’ cruelty against another’s, else it is fact and then you may (only may) have a point.
I am not a young man, and now I have the benefit of hindsight ( a marvelous thing) I can see how easily influenced I was as a young man. You are not aged, that is obvious. You have clearly not read The Bible for yourself, with an indiscriminate mind. You have cribbed certain verses that you think will assist your ‘argument’ from atheist and agnostic web-sites, and you simply repeat what you read, without truly understanding it. You have no real understanding of God, nor his will, his way, his people or his plans. Your young, malleable mind is being shaped by others than yourself.
If we reduce your argument to its most basic level, which appears to be that all religion is garbage, then there is no right or wrong, only might is right, the law of the jungle, the survival of the fittest. Therefore you must learn not to appeal to a moral argument, nor ‘normality’, to prove your point, especially when you espouse amoralism.
BTW, There is more evidence for a man named Jesus, The Christ, than ANY other ancient historical figure in history. Believe in Arthur, King of the Britons? Perhaps Archimedes of the Greeks, or Julius Caesar of the Romans, or Nebuchadnezzar of the Babylonians, or Rameses the 1st (or 2nd) of the Egyptians? Add all their independent, extra-Biblical, ancient references together, they pale into insignificance with those of the man who claimed to be God, Jesus of Nazareth.
What more is there to say? Except, perhaps, to suggest that people who doubt the assertions above ought to read the Bible for itself. If they find it works in practice, if it answers all the big questions, and most of the small, personal ones too, and, finally if there are no contradictions, in spite of what atheist websites and writers say, then you are on to a good thing.
Why is your age interesting? I am sure Stalin or Pol Pot or Mao could have also said, in their time, they are much older and have much more experience, too. Would you be in deference to them? I don;t care how old you are. The reason why I think you are a fool is not because of your age, but because you have decided that there can be no more knowledge about the natural world after about 33 AD. It is beyond stupid to think like this. Hence, Matthew 10:22 rings true.
Still, thanks for the compliment on my age – I should come here more often, to hear what I want to be true, as all serious Christians do every sunday moring, rather than what I know is true. King Arthur – in fact, I had the ‘pleasure’ of meeting him, at the height of his powers outside the NUM buildings when they were in Sheffield (when ‘Threads’ was all the rage, arguably the best thing to happen to that sad city), so I know he exists alright. (Or did you mean someone else?)
Does it matter that Archimedes existed? Not really, what matters is that someone came up with these great inventions and ideas – it happened to be him, but it did not have to be Archimedes. darwin happened to have the mind that worked out how we all came to be, but it didn’t HAVE to be him to make it true. Plato didn’t have to be the mind that concocted ‘Republic’. But some mind did, and that is all that matters.
However, for you, as a Christian, to accept the Sermon On The Mount, or the parable of the Good Samaritan, acceptance of his morality is intwined with believing the superstitious nonsense of his virgin birth, resurrection, tawdry party-trick miracles at wedding parties etc. Otherwise you are damned. You have a gun to your head, because ‘no one comes by the father but by me’ and also Matt 25:42. You have to believe what you are told to believe, however bigoted. What if you accepted the golden rule (which was also uttered by confucius, rabbi hillel and many others, way before the invention of Jesus) and decided you didn’t accept His authority, Viking? Why can’t you just do good without all the nonsense about heaven? As it stands, you only do good in order to be rewarded or to avoid punishment in the afterlife. That is not morality. That is servility.
We don’t need god to be good – and all the statistics show that religiosity and high crime rates go hand in hand.
You claim I pick and choose verses – well, this whole site is devoted to quotemining the homophobic verses to suit your own silly, doomed, laughable cause. But it’s no use squealing about selectiveness when it comes to genocide. Do you want to wash over that Saddam Hussein / Stalin / Khomeini style ethnic cleansing in NUmbers 18? Where is the apology for this evil rubbish in your ‘good news’ bible?
I prefer James I / VI’s version to be honest. We know where we stand.
Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
There is nothing more true and honest and pure and of good report than love between two people, irrespectie of gender. If those words were uttered by Sid Vicious, instead of St Paul, their beauty and truth would not be eclipsed. Love will outlast superstition, of that I am sure.
Good stuff Adrian, every word. I particularly like the ’servility’ observation. These people are craven.
Adrian T,
I have not decided that there can be no more knowledge gained after 33AD, now you are telling me what I think.
Christ was not referring to a man’s ignorance of the laws of physics when speaking of the reason his followers would be hated; he gave the reason for the hate, and you prove the point; it is caused by a person being closely associated with Christ and His name, and therefore his teachings and morality. This is why you dislike those Christians who decree that sodomy is a sin (or indeed that sin even exists); it doesn’t fit with your liberality, and therefore you dismiss both the teaching and the teacher, Christ.
Attributing quotes to Confucius and the like, as evidence of a pre-Christian moral code is quite correct. God gave out his moral code centuries before he created Confucius.
I spoke not of Archimedes, King Arthur, etc in relation to their accomplishments, but of the fact that you believe that they existed, when you base that conclusion on far, far less evidence than for the existence of Christ. You said that there was ‘…scant evidence for the existence of any Jesus of Nazareth’, which is arrant nonsense and highlights how you do exactly what you accuse me of; you do what you’re told, without thinking it through, without examining the evidence.
I agree that religiosity is a filthy thing, and leads to criminal behaviour. Christ thought exactly the same, and taught so. Matthew ch. 23 is ample proof of this.
The KJV is a marvelous gift from God and in my opinion one of very few reliable translations. You are entirely correct to avoid ‘comic-book’ translations.
You end with a brief eulogy on love, and its all supreme goodness. You think that love itself is pure, incorruptible and therefore absolutely beautiful. Does this include the love between a man and a child? What about a man and a donkey? You fail to see that your own judgement on both what is actually good, and what love actually is, has been disastrously impaired by your own sinfulness, even to the point where you will deny that very sinfulness even exists. You are incapable of coming to a correct judgement on these matters as you lack the vital equipment needed to do so, i.e. a second, new, spiritual nature. This reason is the same reason why the words you quote from Philippians were spoken by the Apostle Paul and not by Sid Vicious. Sid was totally incapable of forming such a view.
‘But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ 1 Corinthians 2 v 14.
PS With regard to an ‘apology’ from God for the happenings in the book of Numbers and elsewhere, I don’t think you should hold your breath. He is perfectly entitled to do whatever He wants, whenever he wants. He is God, after all.
BTW, you should read the sources that the likes of Dawkins give you, before you paradoxically post them as evidence of the brutality of the God that you think doesn’t exist. Numbers 18 is a chapter concerning the rituals and cleansing ceremonies of the Priesthood.
Dr Baxter,
I object to being called craven. I can assure you that I am not.
But it doesn’t matter whether those people existed or not. Their accomplishments are all that matter. If you don’t believe Jesus was the son of God and all the associated miracles, then you are not a Christian, full stop. Despite your rhetoric, you can’t provide any evidence – apart from hearsay, which is all the bible is, thanks to all the mistranslations, the editing, the random selection process that decided what books would be in the canon. (where is the earliest complete copy of the bible in existence today, and when was it written?). There isn’t any evidence outside the bible itself. Hence I don’t take your claims very seriously.
As for being incapable of seeing the difference between a consenting relationship based on love, mutual respect, and sexual abuse of minors or animals – well… are you for real? Clearly, you have no idea of what love is. Nowadays, you can’t get away with such a stupid comparison: virtually everyone knows someone who is gay in their friends or family. They know you can’t ‘make’ people gay, it’s not a choice, and everybody needs someone to love….
You can’t demonise gay people, and demonise love, based on unfounded fears now. Really, give your crackers crusade up.
But fine, so long if you’re happy with your beliefs inside your little church, and it has no consequences for anyone else, that’s OK with me.
Adrian T,
You are attempting to shift the argument. The point is that you believe that these people existed and not what they accomplished. The evidence for their existence is minor when compared to Christ, yet you illogically expect others to doubt the existence of Christ whilst openly declaring a belief in these figures.
‘As for being incapable of seeing the difference between a consenting relationship based on love, mutual respect, and sexual abuse of minors or animals – well… are you for real? Clearly, you have no idea of what love is. Nowadays, you can’t get away with such a stupid comparison: virtually everyone knows someone who is gay in their friends or family. They know you can’t ‘make’ people gay, it’s not a choice, and everybody needs someone to love….’
The above is evidence of the ‘line-drawing’. You draw the line of acceptable behaviour at paedophilia and bestiality, I draw it in a different place, but we both draw lines. What if the child consents? Who are you to say that 16 is OK, but 12 isn’t? Why is the homosexual not making a conscious choice, why is he ‘just born like that’, and the paedophile not? Consent is a very tired argument, one with which gays try and fail to wriggle their way out of these facts. If there is no sin, and sex is just a natural, normal, healthy thing, no matter who or what you do it with, then you cannot condemn sexual behaviour you find disgusting, whereas I can. To say a thing is correct because you know lots of people who do it is ridiculous. To compare the sordid scenes of what happens between two perverts with heterosexual sex – well… are you for real?
A love of buggery is not love, so harping on about this perversion in a manner The Beatles would have been proud of is just a sad indication of the paucity of logic in your argument. ‘Everybody needs somebody to love’? Good grief, is that it?
I really cannot be bothered to provide you with links that prove the veracity of The Bible, as you obviously don’t read them, as is evidenced by your Numbers 18 gaff. They are abundant, a trip to the local Library could be most informative, or if you are lazy you could just Google it. The problem you have is that the information does require ‘eyes to see and ears to hear’, and you have neither at the moment. Perhaps God will draw you to repentance, but then again, perhaps he will ‘give you up’. Ezekiel 12 v 2, Romans 1 vv 18-32.
I neither need nor desire your permission for my beliefs.
Please!
Your nonsense is better than your silence.
Don’t you want to play anymore?
English,
Object to your heart’s content, dear sir. Much as I respect your breadth of knowledge you won’t change my view of the catastrophic failure of your undertanding.
Dr Baxter,
I may have a limited understanding, but I am not craven.
Well, as stated before – on what authority do you decide what love is or isn’t, English? How arrogant to talk about gay people ‘wriggling out of it’, as if we owe you, a creationist (i.e. a clown, to be laughed at), a biblical literalist, an explanation! You can believe what you like. The point about ‘consenting’ is simply, that I don’t answer to you. I don’t need, or want, your permission. I don’t want your involvement, or opinion in matters that do not concern you, thanks. So long as you realise that, and keep your respectful distance, then we’re fine. There is no more to be said. I would have replied earlier, but on many evenings I have better things to do with my lovely boyfriend. He’s a Real Treet I can tell you xxx
Adrian T,
You have answered your own questions with regard to the source of my opinions. It would be nice you answered mine.
PS You are ‘wriggling’ now. I can tell because you are refusing to answer questions, and you are trying to annoy me (it didn’t work) with talk of your ‘boyfriend’. The reason you cannot provide answers is because, in order to be logically consistent, you would have to recognise that your ‘reasons’ for liking buggery are the same as for a paedophile liking children. Conscious choice, affected by nothing more than your own depravity.