The Boston Tea Party and the storming of the Bastille were only possible because like-minded people came together and decided to act, and those actions led to complete changes in how their countries were governed.

There is a far better way for a small band of degenerate leaders to keep control, and that is to minimise the possibility of folk coming together to overcome their oppressors. The smoking ban has driven people from the pubs where they spoke freely, and into their own homes to be re-engineered by television. “PC gone mad” has prevented many subjects being raised at all, so that, for example, Labour’s mass immigration programme designed to undermine our country, went largely unchallenged due to the fear of being branded a racist.

We must not be permitted to congregate and speak freely and without fear.

Normal relationships must be discouraged, because strong family ties mean that people rely more on each other and less on the State.

Children are already being trained to be weak due to competitive sports being frowned upon because the chubby ones cannot run as fast as the other kids and the ones with two left feet cannot pass a football with the style of the potential Cruyffs and Zidanes, but Ambush Predator has noticed an even more disturbing idea from across the Pond:

…increasingly, some educators and other professionals who work with children are asking a question that might surprise their parents: Should a child really have a best friend?

Well, apparently this is bad because it hints of exclusivity. That’s right; nobody should have close relationships because others may feel left out.

This is exactly what the modern version of sex ‘education’ is achieving. Sex is promoted as just another type of recreational activity rather than something which should only happen in very special relationships. By encouraging children to be promiscuous, they find it more difficult to settle into normal family life. Society becomes fragile.

And then there is the tried and tested divide and rule, or really divide and conquer, because our treasonous politicians have allowed the EU, UN agencies and many other phoney international institutions to take our money and use it against us. While we argue about B&Bs turning away homosexuals and the discriminatory nature of the Black Police Association, the elite powers are laughing at how well their plans have worked as they continue to take our freedoms in the name of equality and human rights.

No strong families. No strong friendships. No strong communities. Just a strong State with complete control over a people who cannot organise themselves into resisting the tyranny that has been planned for them. Elites are very patient. They have been prepared to wait decades for their grand social experiment to have the desired effect: a planet of dumbed down and dehumanised slaves who do not, indeed cannot, resist their own enslavement.

There may be fewer people than ever capable of standing up for themselves and their country as they cannot see anything much wrong with the way things are going, and anyway, they are more concerned about talent shows on the telly and trying to look cool, but there is still hope judging by the many bloggers who prove that the brainwashing has not been completely successful.

Many other people I speak to are now extremely suspicious of the government. Any government.

How do we scupper the elite’s plans and educate the people to be patriotic, unselfish and wise as serpents? If we fail to achieve this, then the ultimate tyranny awaits us and it may be sooner than we care to imagine. Any of us can now be arrested for practically any reason at all. We are all considered potential terrorists. Any pre-planned government operation could invoke the Civil Contingencies Act.

The ball is probably still in our court, but only just.

DRINKERS who look under 25 years old would be required to produce proof-of-age ID in order to buy alcohol under plans to tackle Scotland’s drink problem.

In an attempt to change the nation’s drinking culture, Labour wants to introduce a mandatory “Challenge 25″ scheme that would force drinkers with youthful looks to carry identification proving that they are over 18 if they want to buy alcohol from off-sales or drink in pubs and restaurants.

You want a glass of wine with your meal? Papers please?

The plan, which is similar to the system operated in the United States, would affect hundreds of thousands of Scots by forcing them carry passports or driving licences when they go out on the town to prove they are over 18.

So expect an inundation of new driving licences and passports to have to be issued after a night on the town. And if any illegal immigrant wants a passport, well they just have to follow a young person home from the pub and mug them.

Even drinkers over the age of 25 would be forced to prove their age if bar staff believe they could be younger.

“We want to protect shop staff and bar staff so that anybody who looks younger than 25 is asked for ID before they buy alcohol,” a Labour spokesman said.

“At the moment, people tend just to ask drinkers if they look 16, 17,18 or 19 but we want to raise the bar to 25.

“This will make it much more difficult for underage people to buy alcohol and will create a culture whereby every young person who wants to buy alcohol will have to produce ID.”

They like creating cultures, don’t they? You would think they’d be happier being microbiologists. Only, the twelve year olds drinking cider in the park will be unaffected as they aren’t buying the booze anyway.

SNP ministers have already proposed introducing a “Challenge 21″ system, a provision that is contained in the Scottish Government’s controversial Alcohol Bill, which is currently making its way through parliament.

Last night, the SNP government indicated that it would look favourably on Labour’s proposal to amend the Bill so that the barrier is raised to 25.

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said last night: “We are pleased that Labour thinks that this is a good idea.

With a straight face?

In America, laws governing the purchase of alcohol have, as a rule, been far stricter than those in the UK.

In all states, the legal limit for drinking is 21. Some states, including California and New York, operate a “Challenge 30″ policy, whereby identification has to be produced if the buyer looks under 30.

Other states simply ask anyone wanting to buy alcohol for ID, a situation that results in even senior citizens showing a driving licence when they go to the off-licence.

Now, this would suit Labour.

The “Challenge 25″ proposal was included in an interim report published by the Alcohol Commission set up by Labour to look at Scotland’s troubled relationship with drink.

Better people have tried for centuries to sort out Scotland’s drinking problems.

But the document released yesterday by the commission, chaired by Professor Sally Brown, of Stirling University, made no recommendations on minimum pricing – the most contentious policy of the SNP government’s Alcohol Bill.

As you know, I was/am an alcoholic. Higher drink prices means less spent on food and heating, and children going without.

Today, MSPs on Holyrood’s Health Committee are expected to publish a report on the bill, which will reflect the parliamentary divide on the issue by failing to back or reject minimum pricing.

In Scotland, minimum pricing has been opposed by the Tories, the Lib Dems and Labour – leaving the Bill well short of the parliamentary majority that it requires to get through parliament.

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.

His crime? Writing on his website that he believes homosexuality is not normal and that it should not be promoted to schoolchildren.

We haven’t seen the likes of this outrageous behaviour since, oh last week, when a Conservative Party candidate in Hampshire,

defended his views against equalising the gay age of consent, saying he feels there is an increased risk of HIV infection.

Dr Julian Lewis, the incumbent MP for New Forest East and shadow defence minister, was accused of being a “paranoid homophobe” at a local hustings by left-wing activist and student Andrew Tindall.

And of course, a couple of weeks ago, Chris Grayling had the nerve to suggest that people who run B&Bs in their homes should be able to decide who resides there.

Yesterday afternoon, the Pink News exclusively revealed Philip Lardner’s views on homosexuality – simply by reading his website. Yes, this is how easy it is to get your exclusive mentioned in the national press and ruin someone’s career in the process.

Look at the headline: Exclusive: Scottish Tory candidate says homosexuality is ‘not normal’.

Indeed he did, but the Marmalade Sandwich has cleverly noticed how the MSM have reported it,

All [The BBC, the Times, the Independent, the Telegraph, the Scotsman  - and, for all I know, several other news providers as well], without exception, have printed a sub-headline which is not true – at least not according to the stories they printed underneath. All say that the Philip Lardner, the Conservative candidate for North Ayrshire and Arran was suspended by the party for describing gay people as “not normal”. All then proceed to quote the remarks which Mr Lardner apparently made. Nowhere does he say that gay people are “not normal”.

He says “I will not accept that their behaviour is “normal.’”

So the original story in the Pink News may be prefaced by the only correct headline, although they fell in line with the others with the update: Updated: Tory candidate suspended for saying gays were ‘not normal’.

According to The Times,

A would-be Tory MP from Scotland has been suspended after describing gay people as not “normal”, it was disclosed today.

No, he did not. He described the behaviour as not normal, rather than the people.

The comments made by Philip Lardner on his campaign website were branded “deeply offensive and unacceptable” by a party spokeswoman.

Under the heading “What I believe in”, the North Ayrshire and Arran candidate had written: “Homosexuality is not ’normal behaviour’.”

Ah, so the journo gets it right with a direct quote, but notice how he uses a quote within a quote: ‘normal behaviour,’ as if to ensure he distances himself from the remark or perhaps to highlight the ‘offensive’ part.

Mr Lardner has been dismissed for stating his personal beliefs, but these beliefs are mainstream no matter how often party officials call them things like: deeply offensive and unacceptable. He also has science on his side because homosexual acts are certainly not natural. Not only that, but he is also lexicographically correct. It is not normal. It is abnormal, but he chose to use the phrase not normal to make it softer.

This latest episode reminds us of what a government led by David Cameron would/will mean.

1. You have to watch what you say and write at all times lest you be accused of a thought crime.

2. Traditional, moral values mean diddly squat.

3. Your children will be indoctrinated à la New Labour.

4. There will be no place for dissent and the harassment of people of conscience will become more severe.

Ironically, Mr Lardner also writes on his site,

Someone must change things – please vote to make that person me.

It doesn’t look like it will be him, sadly, but he is right, someone must change things and very soon.

If it is any consolation for him, he is better off away from these backstabbing sycophantic socialists who have assumed control of his former party.

Owners of the Cononish mine, near Tyndrum, expect to extract up to 73,000 tonnes of ore per year for a decade to cash in on demand for the precious metal, which has soared in price over the last two years.

But the plan has been dealt a major blow by a formal objection from Scottish Natural Heritage, the government’s countryside adviser, which says that the mine will damage the surrounding landscape.

Well, that’s a shame, but the countryside is not a museum. People live and work there, or try to work there.

At least four other environment bodies – including the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) – have also raised concerns about the plan because of the potential risk to the protected Loch Lomond and The Trossachs Park area.

There was no real environmental need to turn these areas of Scotland into national parks in the first place. It was probably a good idea to encourage tourists to the area, but so is a goldmine with its inevitable shop.

SNH is also concerned about possible harm to salmon in the River Tay, one of Scotland’s prime angling rivers, from sediment leaking out of the mine workings into tributaries.

The application to open the mine has been lodged by Scotgold Resources Limited, which has carried out tests confirming the presence of gold at the Cononish site, two miles west of Tyndrum.

If permission is granted, mining will take place between 7am and 11pm six days a week. As well as underground workings, Scotgold intends to construct a service and production building, a storage area, pond, access roads, a bridge and a car park. It also wants to divert a nearby burn.

But a report for the SNH board says the mine would have “a major adverse impact on landscape character” during its construction and operation. It would also substantially increase the amount of disturbance and manmade infrastructure in a “sensitive open upland landscape”.

In other words, people will see building work in progress, followed by signs of very small-scale industrial activity. In Scotland? How awful.

A natural gorge would be lost due to diverting the burn, and the setting of the Eas Anie waterfall would be affected.

Darren Hemsley, the SNH area officer, said the local plan for the national park spells out that support will be given to proposals to reopen old mineral sites only if “there will be no adverse effect on the park’s special qualities”.

And employment for local people clearly isn’t considered a special quality. No, the rights of local people were signed away. And notice how these pen-pushers are known as officers. It is important for the state to get the terminology right so that we proles know our place.

Scotgold says the mine will create up to 50 jobs and bring around £1.5 million annually to the area. Support has come from Strathfillan Community Council on the grounds that the mine would support the “flagging economy”.

But Hemsley said SNH had concluded that the potential economic benefits to the local economy were “not of national or regional significance”.

Just local significance. Why does this not matter to them?

Sepa is concerned that the diversion of the burn could cause a flood risk, while RSPB Scotland says mining activity could affect peregrine falcons nesting nearby. The Scottish Campaign for National Parks and the Friends of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs have also raised concerns.

Robert Maund, chairman of the Scottish Campaign for National Parks, said the mine would “industrialise” the park. It would be built next to Scotland’s most popular long-distance route, the West Highland Way, which attracts up to 50,000 walkers every year.

And a small goldmine would put them off? They can’t be very keen walkers.

The park board will meet in June to decide on whether to allow the mine to go ahead. Members must reconcile dual aims set out in the legislation under which the park was created, which says that the authority has a duty to both conserve the natural heritage of the area and to promote economic development.

Ah-ha, so they have a duty to promote economic development.

Chris Sangster, Scotgold chief executive, said he was in the process of responding to concerns among organisations that had objected.

That should take a while as there seems to be a lot of organisations, mostly tax-payer funded by the looks of it.

Here we see, yet again, how our overbearing state with its vast army of jobsworths can gang up on people trying to make an honest living. I have emphasised some words used in this article: potential, possible and a couple of coulds.

It sounds like they are struggling to come up with real evidence of impending ecological disaster if a small mine is opened for ten years.

Imagine if the ‘authorities’ in California decided in 1849 that, actually, the scenery was rather nice and no mining was allowed. San Francisco would still be a fishing village. Or if the vast number of coalmines which dominated the landscape of parts of Britain had never been operational, which would have been the case if the state had been as intrusive in the 18th Century.

The Industrial Revolution would never have happened. Well, it would have, but in a country which wasn’t governed by quangos, fake charities and other assorted ne’er-do-wells who pick up nice salaries for no discernable benefit to anyone. The tourism of north Wales and Cornwall depends to an extent on its former slate and tin mines. Why are disused mining works blotting the landscape celebrated there, yet an operational one in Scotland is envisaged as a horror? It seems to be the in-thing to be proud of our industrial heritage, while importing and outsourcing as much as possible, to the obvious detriment of the whole country.

Yes, there’s gold in them thar hills, but just leave it there and keep fifty local people on the dole in case the sight of some new buildings upsets a hiker or a couple of falcons object and move somewhere else.

Only in Britain.

I left a rather lengthy comment on Leggy’s blog comparing an LGBT charity to ASH, another registered charity. Here’s what I discovered…

I see Old Holborn links to the Intercom Trust’s accounts (yet another LGBT ‘charity’).

I’d never heard of this outfit before, but it is yet another for the Fake Charities website.

Their 2009 income of £272,909 includes just £4,843 of voluntary donations from the public, plus another £5,355 from ‘Exeter Pride’.

All the rest appears to come from public funds. A fake charity if ever there was one, although not quite as bad as ASH!

Comparing these ‘charities’ which tend for the homosexual – in effect they are state-controlled social engineers – with the likes of ASH is interesting.

ASH gets quite a chunk of its funds from the NHS, but also from charities like Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation. And here was me thinking the money was spent on medical research.

I couldn’t find evidence of Lottery money being siphoned off to ASH, but I came across this on their website:

Children as young as 14 will be offered free nicotine patches in a drive to reduce under-age smoking, it was disclosed yesterday.

Smokers in schools and youth groups will be put on courses of nicotine patches, gum or tablets in an effort to reduce cancer rates.

The £180,000 lottery-funded pilot scheme is to be launched in Lanarkshire, where almost half of deaths from cancer are linked to smoking.

Leg-iron has convinced me that gum and patches don’t really work and neither have a few decades of propaganda:

This BBC article from the start of 2009 says:

The number of young people smoking in Scotland is at a 10-year high.

According to the latest stats, nearly a third of 16 to 24-year-olds smoke.

An 18 year-old from Newton Mearns, reckons that changing the age limit has made more young people want to smoke. “I think because the fact they put it to 18 it made it more cool…,” he says. “It’s a coolness thing.”

So, the 18 age limit wasn’t quite successful. They must be scratching their heads to try and invigorate their few remaining brain cells in their quest to work it out.

The antismokers get a very large amount of their money from:

a) The government’s web of departments;

b) Other charities (making it almost look like money-laundering);

c) The National Lottery

Now compare with the aforementioned Intercom Trust. They get nearly all their money from the same places.

Lottery money provides a huge part of their funding, including Heritage fund money to “promote and support LGB/T Heritage and History Month activities.”

Money also comes from various government sources and the Devon & Cornwall Police.

The work this fake charity does is interesting. Now, I am not suggesting that some people don’t get a hard time for their lifestyle choice, but the Report of the trustees for their last financial year notes that their Helpline took 642 calls. That’s not even two per day on average.

This is what they have helped people with,

We have enabled homeless people to access shelter, and people with mental health problems to negotiate with local mental-health care providers so as to make services more accessible; tenants and landlords have been brought together with positive outcomes for both sides; we have mediated between people in severe difficulties and their local police service to make it possible for the police to provide practical and effective assistance to some very disadvantaged and marginalised people, and thanks to our small hardship fund (the Ashton Fund) we have been able to give direct relief in critical cases of(for example) hunger and rooflessness.

I cannot really see why a ‘gay’ charity has to be available for these particular issues.

In the Spring of 2009 we began a short-term intensive campaign, called “Enough Is Enough”, to encourage phobic crime reporting in Devon. This was funded by the Safer Devon Partnership.

Report name-calling. Report a smoker in your pub. Same idea.

If a genuine crime has been committed then let us all be dealt with equally under the same laws. What we have is neighbour grassing up neighbour in a dirty game to divide us into cultural ghettos.

Perhaps the most effective tactic the homosexual activists discovered was to associate themselves with other equality issues, so that the public perception of them would be transformed from undesirable prancing queers to a poor downtrodden minority in constant need of mollycoddling. One of their favourite sayings over this past week has been, “No gays. No blacks. No Irish.”

Look at who the Intercom Trust was aligned with:

Intercom was part of a consortium which was commissioned by the Dorset County Council Local Area Agreement Partnership Board to map community advocacy services in the pan-Dorset area in the fields of race and religion, disability, and sexual orientation and gender identity, and to produce a development plan for such services.

It is bizarre to me that people now believe that they have a right to be respected for engaging in unnatural sexual behaviour. They wanted tolerance, then respect, but that still wasn’t enough. Now they demand 100% compliance to the rules that Stonewall drew up for New Labour. One very slight step out of line, like Chris Grayling, and the socialist media comes down on you like a ton of bricks.

The Tories want to win the election so desperately that they won’t admit to themselves how crazy this whole situation is.

These fake charities have immense power, not only by dictating policy to the government, but by their use of the media and infiltration of schools.

To sum up this Tale of Two Charities, the National Lottery, the Government and fake charities throw money at promoting one sort of behaviour (practised by few; objected to by many), yet persecute people who partake of different behaviour (practised by many; objected to by nobody in premises where smoking was allowed).

I wonder how the Newspeak dictionary will define “equality”?

It’s everyone’s business, except that you are now presumed to be a paedophile unless you are state-approved. Anyway, let the madness begin…

The Government today set out the next steps to make sure behaviour is good in all schools, so that pupils are free to learn and teachers are free to teach.

It’s another of those we’ve-been-in-government-for-13-years-and-will-now-put-things-right moments. Just before the election. Who’d have thunk?

Children’s Secretary Ed Balls and Schools Minister Vernon Coaker launched a package of measures aimed at supporting teachers and dispelling myths around behaviour in schools. They will say teachers should not be afraid to use the powers the Government has given them to control unruly pupils.

“A package of measures” always sounds like you’ve really thought about it and come up with the best ideas: like allowing teachers to take their belts to those who are being naughty? That’s how my teachers used to control unruly pupils. And it worked, but it didn’t involve the police, social workers and the courts. No, it gave all the power to the teachers instead, which is absolutely no good to a State that now lusts after total control.

And it seems to me that the only powers the Government has given teachers are to pull their hair out and bang their heads against a brick wall. The power balance has been shifted in favour of the pupils and the ones who want to cause trouble know it. They know there is no chance of the instant pain and humiliation of the belt or cane for their misdeeds.

I had a very timid French teacher in either first or second year (I forget which) and who wouldn’t use the belt on anyone, but even she could control the class by sending an unruly child to the next classroom to get a few whacks from Mrs Falk.

The package, announced by Ed Balls at the Association of Teachers and Lecturer’s conference today in Manchester, includes:

* the first 20 of 100 Lead Behaviour Schools that will drive improvements in behaviour for the weakest schools
* guidance for teachers on how to maximise partnerships with exemplar schools
* a new report from Sir Alan Steer calling on schools to make better use of Home School Agreements to engage parents when improving behaviour.

It’s just more buzz words and a new report.

Lead Behaviour Schools

The first 20 of 100 Lead Behaviour Schools with exemplary behaviour were announced, who will receive £40,000 a year to mentor other schools to help improve behaviour across the country. Schools struggling with bad behaviour will be expected to learn from Lead Behaviour Schools and their innovative approaches to tackling behaviour problems.

This is supported by new Behaviour and Attendance Partnership Guidance, advising schools how to harness the expertise of other schools, police and children’s services to improve behaviour in the classroom.

See what I mean? It’s about getting children into the system. Get the cops involved. Children’s services. Anything but let the teachers take control of their classrooms. Teachers who do not have really good skills with children and know how to get their own way more than they do are now expected to take control, not by sending them next door to Mrs Falk to sort it out in half a minute, but to drag the child through the state system.

Children’s Secretary Ed Balls said:

Today I am naming the first 20 of 100 schools leading the way in behaviour policy across the country. These schools are using a range of innovative approaches, and the powers the Government has given them, to turn around poor behaviour in the classroom.

The expert schools will be twinned with schools struggling to control behaviour and there will be an expectation for schools with behaviour problems to learn from the Lead Behaviour Schools.

It won’t work. These things rarely do.

Schools Minister Vernon Coaker said:

However it is not just for Government and schools to drive improvements in behaviour, and parents must play their part.

Are these the same parents who are considered perverts for videoing the school nativity play? Or have their requests for their children to opt out of certain dubious lessons rejected? Even the parents are being emasculated. If New Labour had their way, parents wouldn’t even be allowed to smack their own children.

This is why I welcome Sir Alan’s report which shows how invaluable the Home School Agreement can become. For headteachers to have the power to take court action against parents whose children continue to behave badly, disrupt lessons and impact on other pupils is a vital step in the right direction.

The right direction leading to an all-intrusive state. We are not supposed to just sort things out between ourselves and then get on with our lives. Oh no. That would never do.

The scripture of course refers to Christ’s sacrifice.

But you are not your own in another sense in New Labour’s sick new world. As far as homosexuality is concerned, we are expected to accept it or shut up, even under our own roof! The government/EU expects to override our consciences and get away with it.

A gay couple were turned away from a Berkshire guest house by the owner who said it was “against her convictions” for two men to share a bed.

Michael Black and John Morgan, from Brampton, Cambridgeshire, had booked a double room at the Swiss B&B, Terry’s Lane, in Cookham, for Friday night.

But when they arrived owner Susanne Wilkinson refused to let them stay.

She admitted she did turn the couple away because it was against her policy to accommodate same sex couples.

Her home; her policy. But that no longer means anything today.

The couple have now reported the matter to Thames Valley Police.

And how they must have loved doing it.

Under the Equality Act 2006 it is illegal to discriminate against people on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Ms Wilkinson told the BBC: “They gave me no prior warning and I couldn’t offer them another room as I was fully booked.

“I don’t see why I should change my mind and my beliefs I’ve held for years just because the government should force it on me.

Of course you shouldn’t. A lot of these homosexuals demand to be understood, but go crying to the police about someone else’s beliefs and feelings.

“I am not a hotel, I am a guest house and this is a private house.”

An Englishman’s home is no longer his castle if a pair of men want to share a bed in it.

Mr Black and Mr Morgan were in the village, near Maidenhead, to meet some friends for dinner and to see a local play.

Mr Black told the BBC: “We’re two respectable middle-aged men – John is leader of the Lib Dem group on Huntingdon Town Council.

Respectable? Hell’s teeth.

John is leader of the Lib Dem group. He must be loving the attention. Basking in the wicked discrimination that meant he had to find another bed to share with his boyfriend.

Owner apologised

“This was the first time either of us had experienced homophobia at first hand, despite being aged 56 and 62. We were shocked and embarrassed.

Now hold on. They had never experienced homophobia before at their age? So what is all this public re-education (diversity training) and Stonewall’s infiltration of schools to stamp out ‘homophobic bullying’ all about then?

“Mrs Wilkinson saw us both before we got out of the car and immediately acted in an unwelcoming, cold way, but my boyfriend and I were polite and friendly.

Ah, they’re the good guys, you see.

“She said if we’d told her in advance she would have told us not to come.

But they either didn’t have the decency to explain their situation or wanted to make a big deal out of Mrs Wilkinson’s beliefs and demand she changes her policy as to who she has to stay under her own roof.

“She apologised for turning us away. I asked for a refund of the deposit, which she gave me without quibble.

“We stayed polite and, to be fair, she wasn’t rude or abusive.

Unlike these two, who abused her by reporting her to the police for her beliefs. Sometimes I have to pinch myself that these things are really happening in our country today.

‘Civil matter’

“All she said about her reasons for turning us away was that it went against her convictions for us to stay there.

“We’ve since told a large number of friends and acquaintances and the reaction has consistently been amazement that this should have happened.

That’s because we live in a climate of fear. Many people are scared to nail their colours to the mast – on any subject.

“I’ve reported the matter to Thames Valley Police who have confirmed that they are following it up.”

Of course they are. They have to. No doubt proper, serious crimes cannot be dealt with because the police have to deal with poseurs whose feelings have been hurt.

Thames Valley Police said the call had been logged as a homophobic incident.

Special treatment. Tougher sentences. Equality never was going to be enough for some of them.

A spokeswoman said: “As the people live outside of the force area, we have asked Cambridgeshire Constabulary to speak to the individuals concerned.”

More police time wasted.

A spokesman for Stonewall, which campaigns for equality and justice for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, said turning someone away on the grounds of sexual orientation was illegal.

Derek Munn, director of public affairs, said: “Stonewall was delighted when the law changed in 2007 so that lesbian and gay couples could go on their holidays like anyone else.

They always could go on holiday. The difference now is that they think they don’t have to respect the people they are staying with.

“In open and shut cases of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation the law’s quite clear – it’s illegal for businesses to turn away gay customers or discriminate against them when providing goods or services, and this can’t be overridden by personal prejudice.”

It is the same old line: personal prejudice.

A sincere belief is not the same as personal prejudice, which suggests malice, which is not the case here.

Unlike the personal prejudice of homosexuals who seek out Christian hoteliers so they can make a show of being refused a double bed for them to fornicate on?

The law must be changed to accommodate people’s conscience.

——————

P.S. Let me remind you that the early homosexual activists knew they would have to destroy the traditional family unit in order to feel fully ‘equal’. And as a strong and free society depends on strong family bonds, they are actually destroying our society. The same is true of the use of pornography and New Labour’s sex ‘education’. By changing the natural bonding rules, those human bonds become weaker – one night stands, homosexual liaisons, single parents – and thus society becomes weaker and collectively we are less able to stand up to the increasing amount of authority which is depriving us of our freedom.

Leg-iron has written about the Bill currently going through Parliament which states that being a woman is a protected characteristic.

Insinuating that a woman is not as strong as a man will be “unlawful sex discrimination”, under the terms of the forthcoming Equality Bill.

An example the Telegraph gives is that,

it is likely to be unlawful sex discrimination for a gym to test every woman’s strength but not every man’s before allowing them access to weightlifting facilities.

In other words, if you run a gym, don’t be concerned about your clients’ wellbeing: by order of the Government. Of course, if they hurt themselves, it will be the gym’s fault and they will be able to sue. The gym owners may have to cover themselves by asking the same questions of a big hunky man and a 16 year-old stick-insect model.

It reminds me of supermarkets demanding ID from anyone who looks under 25 before selling them alcohol. I read that Tesco’s is considering putting the age up to 30.

The ‘Nanny State’ has been extended so that everyone who serves the public in any capacity whatsoever is also obliged to be a nanny.

— Prove to Nanny you are seven years older than you legally need to be to buy a few cans of beer or be humiliated in front of other customers.

— Show Nanny you treat everyone ‘equally’ by pretending you cannot discern for yourself that some people are not fit for purpose, whether in the gym or in your employment.

— Demonstrate to Nanny that you approve of her smoking ban by being an unpaid grass.

Then there is this, frankly, scary piece of ‘advice’ in the ‘equality’ Bill,

It does not matter what the service provider’s intentions are or whether the service provider’s less favourable treatment of the person is conscious or unconscious.

The service provider may even think that they are doing the person a favour, or simply be unaware that they are treating the person differently because of a protected characteristic.

I have to question the real motive for this. Well, you have to with everything the Government does these days, don’t you? You might be breaking the law by trying to do someone a favour? Come again? Some people already risk being prosecuted if they help their neighbours by clearing snow from the pavement outside their homes and someone slips on it. This is bad enough, but simply giving advice to a woman that you wouldn’t give to a man could be deemed ‘discrimination’ just because the government says that being a woman is a protected characteristic.

A woman is different from a man. Not in a bad way, in a good way. It is about time Harman accepted this. I actually think that womanhood is a precious thing, unlike Harman and the government. If they want to protect women, why are they turning them into gender-neutral creatures for equality’s sake?

It is because what is normal must be destroyed and replaced with the seeds of destruction of our freedom. I expect they rejoice in the gangs of female lager louts stoating around our towns and cities because it proves their re-engineering is taking hold.

Even chivalry will be illegal if this Bill makes it through. As if manners aren’t thin enough on the ground already, the government wants us men to pretend women aren’t women and not be concerned about them. It is normal for men to be protective towards women.

But every type of healthy, normal human impulse and interaction is under attack. Heterosexual relationships with men as the providers and protectors and women as the gentler sex – the carers and home-makers, are being redefined as just another lifestyle option. And childhood, where ‘equality’ means that this must end at the age of five when children, many of whom cannot yet tie their shoelaces, are to be told that sodomy and abortion are their rights, that all religions are equal and that climate change is killing all the cuddly polar bears (it’s not) and it is all their parents’ fault.

So be careful what you say at all times. In fact, it is better to say nothing at all in case you are less favourable towards someone with a protected characteristic, whether it is conscious or unconscious. Just stay in your home and tune in to the BBC for further instructions.

One simple thing we can all do (but won’t). There is an election due any time now. Don’t vote for these criminally insane sociopaths.

Anna Racoon’s campaign via Old Holborn’s PayPal account raised more than enough needed to pay the remainder of Mr Hogan’s fine. £8,664.50 in cash was handed in to the Custody Officer in Forest Bank jail in Pendlebury by a masked Old Holborn.

As Anna Raccoon points out,

Nick was jailed as an example to us all, that when the State barks ‘jump’ you only question ‘how high’.

He didn’t. He said ‘Why’?

The State made him pay a high price for his temerity; they harassed him, hounded him, bankrupted him, and finally forcibly removed him from his family and friends and jailed him for six months.

His crime? No longer the original charge that he had failed to prevent two customers from smoking on his premises. No. He was actually jailed for being unable to pay the £11,600 in fines and prosecution costs resulting from that charge. He had managed to pay off £1,600, but incomprehensibly to the State, he was not able to put his hands instantly on the £10,000 balance.

The State is so used to having a bottomless pot of Taxpayers money to dip into whenever they feel the need, that they have literally lost the ability to comprehend what the recession means to ordinary people.

Leg-iron warns against non-smokers being smug:

How many of New Labour’s laws can you name? They have one with your name on it somewhere, no matter how well-behaved you think you are.

This is one way the State keeps the proles living in fear. There really is a “law” which could be used to fine any single one of us for the most unbelievably microscopic misdemeanour. Then, if you refuse to pay the fine or are unable to, they can lock you away.

This time it was Nick Hogan who was made an example of by refusing to be an anti-smoking law-enforcement officer on his own premises. Next time it could be you! For anything at all.

Hands up all those who still want a Lib/Lab/Con “government” dictated to by Brussels?