Video: frocks and pompoms for primary school boys

When I try to explain the homosexual agenda, many normally sensible people cannot understand the damage it is doing. They think I am overreacting to what is, essentially, an “equality” issue. But homosexuals already have equality. What they crave now is for the whole of society to be re-engineered around them and for everyone to accept their behaviour as normal and thus for all opposing views to be silenced. The way they are trying to achieve this now is through using teachers to indoctrinate children.

Stonewall have sent out ‘teacher training packs’ to staff at primary schools,

Children as young as five should learn about gay relationships in schools and boys should be allowed to express their feminine sides by dressing in frocks or becoming cheerleaders, according to a Government-funded initiative.

The new pack was created by the gay rights organisation Stonewall with the help of a £25,000 grant from the Government’s teacher training body, the Training and Development Agency for Schools.

This is taxpayers’ money being used to make children question their gender and role.

And notice the veiled threat:

Schools and local authorities are urged to use the material to demonstrate they are complying with the Equality Act 2010, which obliges public bodies to promote equality.

Many people still defend Stonewall and the homosexual lobby with the old argument that what goes on in the bedroom is nobody else’s business, and that it doesn’t affect them, but things went well beyond that stage years ago. What Stonewall does affects each and every one of us because they are very effectively changing the norms of society.  We have already seen how they also threaten freedom of speech, freedom of association and the property rights of those who disagree with them.

One of the scariest ways this agenda impacts on us all can be heard in the video, and that is the teaching of children to resist the values of their parents and grandparents. We have witnessed the same agenda when it comes to encouraging children to seek contraception and abortion behind their parents’ backs. The State also wants children as young as five to be given sex “education” with no opt-out for the parents.

The State owns your children now. They have assumed the role of surrogate parent.

One of the teachers in the DVD says that some of the boys “really loved wearing the dressing-up dresses and it went on for several weeks.”

Are the parents told? Told – not asked, obviously. But are the parents being told that their sons are parading about in dresses while at school?

So creepy.

One very popular tactic apologists use when trying to justify same-sex acts is by alleging that some animals are homosexual and insisting that humans ought to take behavioural lessons from dumb animals. One of the picture books being promoted to teachers is “And Tango Makes Three,” about a penguin chick raised by two male penguins. It was based on a true story from New York’s Central Park Zoo, however, one of the “gay penguins” found a female mate. It seems that the penguins weren’t homosexual, just lonely.

But don’t expect a rewrite of the book for future editions. School isn’t for learning the truth, it is about indoctrination and being confused about right and wrong.

This is all about changing the perceptions, instincts and values of the next generation. This is a very serious re-engineering of society. Please do not underestimate what is going to happen when future generations reach adulthood with these negative views on family life and whose brains have been hardwired to accept state propaganda as the final word.

And as I keep saying, this is not about religion. Homosexual acts have been taboo all over the world because normal family bonds are what keep the community strong. The weaker these bonds have become in the UK, the more society has become fragmented.

Stonewall are by no means the only culprits, but the longer they are permitted to pervert the minds and souls of the next generation, the worse this fragmentation will become. That’s why everyone will pay the price. What else can we expect for treating children so appallingly?

How much worse will you let it become before you too speak out against it?

Stonewall - using your children to mould society to suit them

Stonewall - using your children to re-engineer society in their image

H/T – Video noticed and title pinched from here.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

184 Responses to Video: frocks and pompoms for primary school boys

  1. robbo says:

    Okay, Stewart, I’ll bite. So in your ideal society how should children be taught to treat other children who have gay parents? How should they be taught if they have gay parents? Please don’t obfuscate by answering that parents can’t be gay, they have to be a man and a woman, you know the question I am asking, please make some attempt at answering it.

  2. English Viking says:


    I’ll interrupt, if you don’t mind?

    They should be taught the square root of 49 and the capital of Thailand, not brainwashed into dodgy ‘morality’ (groupthink) based the fads and demands of homosexuals.

  3. Stewart Cowan says:


    What English said.

    But to answer your question, my “ideal society” is impossible in a fallen world. I think it would be helpful if people remember this when voting for politicians who promise them the earth. You have to look behind the agendas – who’s pulling the strings and why. Feminism, for example, was promoted by the CIA to precipitate the breakdown of society – again via weakening the family.

    These agenda are like cyanide pills which are sugar-coated on the outside to make you swallow them, but inside is deadly poison.

    If children do have “gay parents” it is rare and the whole school doesn’t need “materials” via Stonewall who clearly will want to make them believe it is normal.

  4. Vee says:

    Reflect for a moment on the 1985 ‘Labour Gay Rights Manifesto’

    It is a direct threat to traditional family life and the welfare of our children for it states:-

    ‘’Children grow up under the power of their parents. As children, any behaviour which is obviously sexual in adult terms is repressed… A socialist society would supersede the family household… Gay people and children should have the right to live together… Children and young people should have the right to determine their own sexual lives… Marriage should be disestablished… Women need access to free contraception and abortion facilities; this applies just as much to young women as to ‘adults.’ Children should be able to divorce their parents… It follows from what we have already said that we favour the abolition of the age of consent.’

    Some would argue that a paedophile couldn’t have put a better manifesto for children!

    If you consider this extreme, then reflect for a moment on the fact that most of what is advocated has come about? Under current legislation the State now supersedes the family.

    Social Workers have more de facto control over children then parents. Free contraception and abortion is on hand for schoolgirls irrespective of the wishes of the parents. Health clinics within schools now issue free condoms or the morning-after pill.

    Measures are in place that allow children to reject their parents in favour of the State.

    Conventional marriage is under threat from the so-called gay marriage arrangements. The age of consent for children to indulge in sexual activity, either straight or gay, has been lowered but not yet abolished.

    A consequence of this is that we now have more deeply troubled children whose lives are comprehensively impoverished.

  5. Great post Stewart, thanks.

  6. Stewart Cowan says:

    Thanks, Richard.

    And thanks, Vee, for sharing that info. This shows nicely (=horribly) how far this agenda is meant to go. I should have talked about this in my post The long road to legalised paedophilia.

  7. lionheart says:

    @ Robbo,

    Its a question of balance, children should certainly be told not to treat anyone differently regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation etc but of course thats far easier said than done.

    Its just how far things are taken that the majority of people are increasingly having problems with, thankfully my son is at an age and we have the sort of relationship where I know he will ask me about anything that he doesn’t understand or is curious about. I would certainly not be happy about some of the proposals being implemented at his school when he was far too young to understand.

    Common sense has gone out of the window, teach the kids to not be prejudiced for ANY reason but whats happening now is that it looks like promoting a lifestyle is becoming more of an issue for some groups and I know that many many “ordinary” parents feel the same as I do.

  8. robbo says:

    I posted a link a few days ago about the sex-ed programme in UK schools. No-one has come back to me about what their issue is with it, just load of crazy conspiracy nonsense and legalised pedophilia utter bollox. I don’t have children of my own but I have watched my nephew and niece grow up and I actually work in a school and so I know what school children are like and they are old enough for anything in there, believe me. Also I can still just about remember what I was like. I know if I ever have children I will want them to be taught this stuff because it is as essential to their lives as what the square root of 49 and the capital of Thailand are. Does that make me unfit I wonder? I think that the religious conservatives just don’t like it because more and more people are calling them on their bigotry and the only answer they seem to be able to put up is “Oh, you just feel that way because you’ve been brain washed by the liberal left and their only agenda is to destroy our society.” Sorry, but what a load a crap.

  9. robbo says:

    P.S. I didn’t get any sex-ed AT ALL in my school days. So if you want to know why I am so screwed up now, you will have to think again.

  10. robbo says:

    P.P.S. For “religious right” please read Christians or whatever if it makes you feel better and for “liberal left” read Illuminati or Satan or anything else.

  11. lionheart says:


    I can’t speak for anyone else but my personal issue is more about the future proposals that Stonewall (amongst others) are advocating.

    Regardless of the religious issue I just don’t feel comfortable reading SOME of the suggested ideas, as I’ve said previously I feel that when extremists of any kind (and there are gay rights extremists as well as religious ones) get involved it alienates the majority who might well support the causes otherwise.

  12. Vee says:


    What are the potential consequences for our school children?

    Well, two extensive studies were published in 1999 in the American Medical Association’s Archives of General Psychiatry confirm a strong link between homosexual sex and suicide as well as a relationship between homosexuality and abnormal mental problems.

    A study using 103 pairs of twins, one a practicing homosexual and the other not, found that homosexual behaviour significantly increased the likelihood of suicide even after adjustments were made for substance abuse and depression. The practicing homosexual twin was over 5 times more likely to experience the suicidal symptoms. The study conducted by Richard Herrell et al. measured suicide risk in terms of the categories: “wanted to die,” “suicidal ideation,” “attempted suicide,” and “thoughts about death.”

    The study was unique for its thorough co-twin control design and its use of the most widely used instrument in psychiatric epidemiology, the Diagnostic Interview Schedule.

    The second study – Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people by David M. Ferguson and his team found that “gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people are at increased risk of psychiatric disorder and suicidal behaviors.” The youth suffering from these disorders were 4 times as likely as their peers to suffer major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly 4 times as likely to experience conduct disorder, 5 times as likely to have nicotine dependence, 6 times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and over 6 times as likely to have attempted suicide.

    The study was based on a 21-year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of 1265 children born in Christchurch, New Zealand. Of 1007 subjects questioned only twenty-eight (2.8%) were classified as being gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

    The Sexual Orientation Regulations outlaw any ‘homophobic’ discrimination. The Department for Education and Skills already recommend some ‘anti-homophobia materials and gay right groups will want to expand their pressure on schools. For children aged from five upwards, Government departments recommend 12 books including ‘Daddy’s Roommate’, ‘Hello Sailor and ‘The Sissy Duckling’. Among the four books recommended for secondary-aged children is the sexually explicit novel ‘Strange Boy’, in which a ten-year-old boy has a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old boy. The end result will be that schools will be compelled to teach about gay sex and to treat homosexuality as the norm.

    Some children have no moral compass and are afraid of being labeled as homophobic in a culture which, at every turn, encourages homosexuality as the norm.

    Slowly, we are threatening their vulnerability and innocence. We have more regard for the rights of homosexuals than the love of innocent children.

    This amounts to a monumental error and it is the children who will suffer.


  13. lionheart says:

    And as if by magic someone comes along and proves my point about what damage extremists cause to public opinion

  14. lionheart says:

    The language in the above link IS homophobic, of course he won’t see it that way but can anyone that reads that honestly say that the impression they get is of someone making a point based of religions beliefs rather than bigotry and hatred?

  15. robbo says:

    Well, you have to hand it to him. His copy and paste skills are second to none.
    So you’ve got 103 pairs of twins. One is a homosexual, one is not. What are the other 101? Dalmatians?
    Can you tell us more about co-twin control design, please. I’m a bit dumb and don’t quite understand that terminology

  16. Homophobic? Excuse me? It’s a comical slang term, not a derogatory term, and it’s clear from the context that I was referring both to heterosexuals and homopervuals (anybody who engages in sodomy). In LH’s haste to defame me LH came to an unwarranted conclusion which is not supported by the context! ‘Bum bandits’ is satirical, it is certainly not hateful – and the judicious application of satirical devices is quite legitimate in political activism. Somebody should advise LH to think before LH speaks ;)

  17. robbo says:

    So what do you think “Doofus” is, Richard? Should I call you a bum-bandit instead?
    Yes, I think will. Richard is a bum-bandit.
    Oh and by the way 5000 people told me they saw him felching some great big homopervual in Salford last night.

  18. robbo says:

    Richard is a heteropervusexual bum bandit. The dirty bastard.

  19. You’ll call me what you like – according to the depravity of your heart – it’s nothing to me.

    But whatever you do, don’t say Vaggie Viking or this blog’s resident King of O might take his axe to you.

  20. robbo says:

    Richard’s party trick is dry-inserting a full-sized medicine ball into his jap’s eye. 2000 people told me they saw him do it.

  21. When I try to explain the homosexual agenda…

    Obsess much?!

    Somebody bump ye olde gramophone, the record’s stuck…

  22. English Viking says:


    You do it to yourself (take that however you like), don’t you? In all the time I have been commenting on this blog, and taking into account the vast plethora of idiots, morons, half-wits and ignoramuses I have had to respond to, not one has been half as facile, attention-seeking, bile-invoking, swear-word-inducing, ignorant, arrogant, rude, provocative or just plain stupid as you.

    I was going to leave you alone, as I did some research on you and found that not a small part of what those you consider your ‘enemies’ (just about everybody) say about you is demonstrably true, and I didn’t want to push you over the edge, as you are apparently a bit fragile upstairs. I have now changed my mind, as I object to your caricaturing (lying) of my position the Bible’s teaching on sexual matters and, indeed, an almost total misrepresentation of all things Christian. I have, however, decided to refrain from calling you mildly offensive obscenities in future, as I regret being dragged down to your level on a previous thread.

    You seem somewhat obsessive/compulsive on this matter of sex. You mention it at every turn, and your ‘social campaigning’, whatever that is, seems to revolve around prostitutes, gays, brothels, pædophiles or pornography, even men that like having sex with their wife. You appear to get a cheap thrill from posting links to pornographic sites from your ‘hardcore’ blog, snigger behind your hand at words like ‘bum’ and pretend you are living a life of sacrifice in following your weird little hobby. You delude yourself that ‘When I have political power’, you will ‘crush this evil’, and use other, equally moronic phrases that massage your tiny ego.

    Let’s get it nice and clear. Repeat after me:

    ‘I, Richard Carvath, possess no abilities whatsoever that would enable me to achieve political power. I have deluded myself into thinking that I do, even going so far as to lose my deposit in a General Election. I came last, because nobody wants me to represent them, apart from the 0.9% of the constituency’s other mental patients that voted for me. I am unemployed, probably unemployable, single and almost universally disliked. All these things are my own fault. I am not being persecuted for Christ, people dislike me because I am rude, childish, untruthful, vain and a publicity seeker. I must stop reading pornographic sites in the name of ‘research’. I must stop trying to get people to hit me/kill me so that I can claim I am a martyr. I must stop lying. I must stop pulling tufts of my own hair out.’

    If you say that to yourself, every time you get the urge to open your mouth (or a porn site), you will truly be getting, every day, and in every way, a little better.

    PS Comparing the reality of the existence of the Lord Jesus Christ to the reality of a co-commenters wife’s vagina (really, he did) is something you need to think about before you next approach him in prayer.

  23. lionheart says:

    Its fairly obvious that Richard is trying to get himself charged by the police so he cay scream that they are victimising Christians for his personal publicity needs.

    What he doesn’t realise (or more likely doesn’t care) is just how much damage it causes to real Christians who are trying to debate on the strengths of their views. The type of language that he uses (and has used for years) will lead to most people (who might make the assumption that he is typical of Christian views) to think that yes it obviously is homophobic and strengthen the case for even stricter laws as a result.

    The good news is that I’m sure that every Christian organisation will distance themselves on receiving a copy of “The best of Caravtah” and he’ll be very alone, I’m sure there won’t be any shortage of people sending it to places like The Christian Institute to show him for what he really is.

    Who knows a few months locked up with a big gay bloke might completely change his perspective!!

  24. Stewart,

    Robbo and LH will keep up the soiling and spoiling of your blog with their depraved presence as long as you let them. They are only on your blog for one reason – namely their obsession with anonymously attacking me on the web. They have no genuine interest in your blog or in genuine debate with you over the issues you raise on your blog.

    I could show you a recent email I received from the Manchester vice trade in which the sender threatens me with defamation on various named websites, and in which email Real Street is named. I can put up with the nonsense ad infinitum, but there can be no doubt that it lowers the tone considerably; it will eventually put people off this blog (if it hasn’t already).

    As I’ve said before, these people have only one motive; you can therefore expect that they will keep doing the same thing for as long as they are allowed. My past experience elsewhere on the web shows that: (1) they are always anonymous; (2) their chief subject of interest is me; (3) their character that shows through is depraved; (4) their false claims and fabricated quotations are unsourced/unverifiable; (5) when challenged on something specific they are invariably evasive; (6) any socio/political views they do express are in opposition to mine.

    I am a genuine contributor to this blog, and I was contributing a long time before LH/Robbo decided to follow me here. I contribute comments in response to and on the topic of your blogs, whereas any cursory examination of LH’s contributions betrays an overwhelming obsession with Carvath.

    We have now heard from LH, over and over and over again, LH’s anti-Carvath favourites of mentally ill/criminal/socially inadequate/a failure/hated by everybody/hates everybody/stupid/uneducated/a freak/a loner/a fantasist/an extremist/a closet homopervual (did I miss anything out?). We have heard it so often that it has become rather tedious.

    This is the wild west of the internet. LH does have the option to set up a dedicated anti-Carvath website any time LH likes – and there are people who have done that (and perhaps LH is one of them). I don’t see why this blog should be spoiled with LH’s continued smearing of excrement all over it: LH is like a coprophiliac homopervual urinating and smearing his own excrement over himself and others. It’s disgusting!

    I know how you are committed to genuine free speech as much as I am Stewart, but I think the time has come to ask if LH has anything more to say that LH hasn’t already said and repeated several times now.

    Myself, I’d be tempted not to ban LH from this blog but simply to torment him by challenging him to keep on contributing but without reference to a certain somebody. It would be very interesting indeed to see how long LH sticks around if he had permission to say anything he liked except mention me!

    Does LH have anything of substance to say on the content of your blog-posts? Does LH have the ability and the inclination to debate with you specifically on the issues, without mentioning me? I suspect the answer to both is No.

  25. lionheart says:

    A short translation of Richards post = Stuart please please stop Robbo , English Viking and Lionheart from picking on me or else.

    If you care to notice Richard my first comment on this thread had nothing at all to do with you but you then went and made my point for me (albeit from the other side of the fence to the Stonewall proposals that I original disagreed with).

    Stop trying to tell Stuart how to run his blog and instead consider why your own various blogs have no discussions at all on them while Stuarts does??

  26. Prove me wrong then ;)

  27. Stewart Cowan says:


    If you had children and wanted a group of activists to tell their teacher that your son(s) should be poncing around in dresses then that’s your prerogative. Even Lionheart can see that’s wrong.

    And here’s me thinking it was the weed and death metal that was “screwing” you up. You live and learn!

  28. Stewart Cowan says:


    Richard writes on his blog:

    “Botty-holes are not vaginas.” And:

    “If you don’t want disease – avoid promiscuity and perversion.”

    Both are facts. I think your allegation of “homophobia” is unjustified.

  29. Stewart Cowan says:


    Any “normal” person should be astounded and angry at what Stonewall is doing.

  30. Stewart Cowan says:


    I wish you would stop mincing your words and start telling us what you really think!!

  31. Stewart Cowan says:


    I have to admit that this war became tedious a long time ago (seems like a long time ago) and it is clear that you didn’t come here spoiling for a fight. I did look at ending the other thread – something I haven’t done before – but couldn’t see how to do it.

    It would be helpful if Lionheart, especially, told us why he has such a strong opinion of you.

  32. Stewart Cowan says:

    I think that to be a real Christian you have to be ultra-loving and that such love sometimes necessitates tough talking. Perhaps none of us has the balance right.

  33. robbo says:

    Woah. English Viking, SIr! You have gone up a rung or two in my estimation. That puts you nearly at the top. Steady on!
    Stewart, am I blessing or a curse to you? Please be frank.
    Richard, I don’t possess any of that cutting wit but allow me my say if you will. If you do as E.V. suggests (I would put it this way: it is better to be nothing special that especially dumb) your life will change immeasurably for the better and for sure no-one else’s would suffer. I think you could be a good person if you just allow one speck of doubt to come into your mind that maybe you could be wrong. Wrong about anything it doesn’t really matter. I am nothing special and life is special because of that. I have added you on facebook so you can find out all about me if you wish.

  34. Here’s yet more proof that LH is vice trade; this afternoon I received the latest in a long line of sinister emails, and this latest one refers to the Canon and Church recently mentioned on this blog, along with the claim that there is currently something I wouldn’t like attached to that Church’s outside noticeboard.

    And over the last couple of weeks as LH has been pursuing his defamation campaign against me on this blog, I have had several emails of the same type, all of which tend to confirm that LH is vice trade.

  35. English Viking says:


    Shouldn’t LH be spending his time pimping and dealing, instead of following you around (as you imagine), if he was vice trade?

    Has it occurred to you that the Internet is a public forum, and that, IF you were being harassed by e-mail by vice trade, the person doing so may be picking up on comments here in a (successful) attempt to increase your paranoia?

    Why not put up the mails on your blog, say as a screenshot (to avoid ‘tinkering’, and then we can all decide who is telling the truth?

  36. robbo says:

    Thing is though, E.V. and myself have looked into what LH has been saying and it seems he is telling the truth. If he is telling the truth then you must be a liar. Who would you believe?

  37. Viking, you’re as bad as the anonymous vice trade on here. You attack a named person anonymously. You need to grow up and take the paper bag off your head if you want to be taken seriously in intelligent debate. There can be little doubt that for you, your cowardly anonymity is simply a licence to abuse other people whilst avoiding any consequences to yourself.

    I have always detested anonymity in debates in forums and on blogs on the web. It is always abused, often to pursue very serious defamation.

    You clearly have a very biased view of me based on a selection of highly dubious sources. Clearly you side with the vice trade, not to mention your O habits and your childish and rude language about a named person… are you sure you’re of the faith you claim?

  38. Well, I wouldn’t even entertain the testimony of anybody whose identity cannot be verified (and not to mention the lack of a second witness to corroborate).

  39. English Viking says:


    Do you entertain the testimony of the writer to the ‘Hebrews’?

    No? Then you deny scripture.

    Yes? Then you accept anonymous testimony.

    PS Talking about childishness and rude language, I submit the following for your perusal.

    ‘Cock, bum-bandit, vaggie, King of ‘O’, homopervual, ‘Christ is as real as your wife’s vagina’ … all examples of your childish, rude and demented ramblings. Pot and kettle, really.

  40. lionheart says:

    Again with the vice trade rubbish!!

    I thought YOUR actions of filming in the church where despicable Richard so I certainly wouldn’t condone any action that involved the church in any publicity or action without the consent of its clergy.

    Your actions are all over the web and anyone who can type your name into Google will see the same stuff as I’m quoting so why are you making it out to be some sort of weird conspiracy that numerous people have read the same articles ??

    Are EV or Robbo affiliated to some shady anti-Carvath organisation that are feeling particularly affronted by something or other your involved in ? Is it True Christians against oral sex in marriage or perhaps the Campaign for all women who wear short skirts to go to hell (Your the self elected spokesperson for both I understand). And IF there is something on the Church it wouldn’t surprise me if you put it there yourself just for the publicity so you can claim that your being harrased, after all if you can invent women journalists and give them fictitious interviews for some publicity as it was shown you did then your capable of anything.

    I think you do more to swing public opinion in favour of groups like Stonewall’s views than anything else with your never-ending quest for publicity and that really is a problem for anyone that is interested in any sort of sensible debate from a Christian viewpoint.

    Read EV’s excellent comment above and take it in before its too late.

  41. lionheart says:

    Just as another point that your continently ignoring if you look at my last comment on the Why is Liberal Conspiracy the Number 1 Blog article then you will notice that I have virtually told you exactly where the person who posted details of your criminal and medical records had to have got it from and that to do so is a criminal offence (well at least three different offences actually)(the copying of it by other people however isn’t but there will be a record of a search on your records so it should be fairly simple to find the culprit that leaked the information).

    Why would I bother to give you that information if I was responsible? The police can trace whoever looked IF they want to but if they bother after all the things you write about them if a very different matter.

    PS You have no understanding at all of so many subjects and your latest post about dishonourable behaviour from a police officer whose suing his force prove that, you don’t even understand why he is suing and why he will definitely win do you?

  42. lionheart says:

    This is another of Richard’s “persona’s” who “went trekking in the Himalayas” when a couple of websites revealed that “she” shared an IP with Mr Carvath and challenged her to show her face!! (note me mentions his ban from the courts though he forgets to mention why)

    It just proves how far he’ll go or how ill he is depending on your viewpoint for publicity. How is any argument or debate with him ever going to end in anything other than farce with this sort of behaviour?

  43. English Viking says:


    A couple of questions RE the blog that LH links to;

    Why, if ‘Dixgood-Jones’ is the Queen of Salford blogging, does she only have two posts on her entire site, one a couple of lines long about hiking (you like hiking, don’t you? Strange that) and the other, quite lengthy, entirely about all the famous people you don’t know and how rock-hard you are?

    Why do you talk about the (then) upcoming election, in Jan 2010, when the election wasn’t called until April 6, 2010?

    You’re making this stuff up, aren’t you?

    BTW Dixgood? DIXGOOD??? Really, stop it with the porn-site research Carvath, it’s bad for your imagination.

  44. robbo says:

    Anyway. I have looked at the video again in the initial posting and I notice it is from the Christian Institute. I would be very interested to see the original Stonewall video they are referring to (in full). Does anyone know where it can be found?

  45. Viking, you’re the one obsessing about me, not the other way round. You are the one repeatedly writing at length about somebody you assert is utterly insignificant. Are you stupid? Who goes on and on about a nobody? That you’re stupid is the only conclusion I can come to.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the writer of Hebrews [almost certainly Paul] isn’t defaming me or anybody else in that epistle? It might not be deliberate anonymity in any case – just that we don’t happen to know the author, but even if it was there is nothing evil or false in the epistle. I don’t think comparing yourself to the writer of Hebrews is reasonable, or do you think the message and motives of your writings compare favourably? (Are you depraved as well as stupid I might ask?)

    On the basis of your conduct towards me personally, I doubt that you are a Christian. I think you sincerely think that you are a Christian but I suggest to you that you are sincerely mistaken. I cannot conceive of any Christian – even somebody going through a really bad patch – carrying on the way you have been recently.

    As for LH’s never-ending BS, there are no details online such as LH fabricates, because I have never been a criminal and I have never been mentally ill. (If there was any such material you can be sure LH would be trumpeting the link to it.) One seriously has to wonder about LH’s state of mind though – and LH’s motives. I defy anybody to conclude other than that LH is pathologically obssessed with me. This sick individual has certainly failed my ‘Prove me wrong’ test (as given earlier on this thread), and I for one have had enough of this garbage now, for the simple reason that the presence of this garbage just ruins this blog. There was no such problem before LH came along. I’d suggest to you Stewart that LH has had more than a fair crack of the whip by now, has abused your hospitality and it is now time to ban LH.

  46. robbo says:

    Richard, you don’t have any right to any respect. But you can still earn some. Admit what you did.

  47. lionheart says:

    Pretty sure the heading of this is Stewart Cohan’s blog NOT Richard Carvath’s so stop telling people what to do Richard.

    If he doesn’t are you going to declare Stuart a “non Christian” or not really a “true” Christian in the gospel according to Carvath as you have with English?

    So you want me and Robbo banned and presumably any comments English makes about you moderated do you? Isn’t that the sort of free speech you have on your blog Richard, anyone who disagrees with you is threatened with purgatory on this blog so no wonder you don’t have a single named commentator on your various blogs .. ever??

    You really should read how Stewart has been gagged on other blogs and how he feels about that Richard before you start ordering him to do that left right and centre on here.

  48. I don’t seek, want or need your respect.

    ‘Respect’ from a depraved person such as yourself would be more like a disgrace. And I might add: what value is there in the ‘respect’ of an anonymous person? Not much use as an endorsement!

    I really do fear for some of you. I can’t imagine being so obssessed about another person. I can at least understand why (immature) teenagers become very excited about famous celebrities and superstars, but I am not in the slightest bit famous (and I don’t currently hold any public office either).

  49. I’d just ban LH right now. Free speech does not run to what LH is about (and in any case LH is simply repeating the same stuff over and over – such endless repetition is in effect spam). Stewart can do what he likes, this is his blog; whatever he does I hold Stewart Cowan in high regard. All I’m saying (and the only reason I suggest banning LH) is if Stewart doesn’t ban LH then LH will carry on spoiling his blog.

    I cannot keep submitting comments to this blog regarding the same tired old nonsense from LH; to do so would be a grievous waste of my time. This is therefore my very last comment in response to any of the ridiculous anti-Carvath garbage being posted to this blog, whether it comes from LH or anybody else – and that really is final.

    It is Stewart’s prerogative to decide if he is happy with having his blog continuously smeared with off-topic defamatory excrement from anonymous persons, but if Stewart is happy with it then so am I; henceforth I will simply ignore the excrement and post comments on Stewart’s topics.

  50. robbo says:

    Anyone here who wants my facebook details can have them. I am already connected to Stewart so I am not anonymous. I don’t see the point of putting my full details for everyone to see but if we have shared a word or two I will add you. Richard, I could not actually add you as you have an odd profile but I have shared it so I hope you can see that. I do not intend to jump through any more hoops for you than that. You are right, I have not bothered verifying every last thing LH has said about you. What I have checked has shown to be true. So you may not in fact be a criminal or a lunatic, I don’t know and I don’t need to know. I do think there is undeniable evidence you are a liar and a charlatan though who has operated under several aliases, many of them sexy females. Some of them actually did stir my loins a little. Roxy Redpants was hot. Obviously I am very happy that I am an unbeliever and I don’t have to be all holy like others on here, as I look to a higher power than the bible for my moral code. I understand if you disapprove of my antics, but I don’t much care. I know that everyone, including yourself, will agree that your alleged actions (posing as people to talk yourself up and praise yourself) are either immoral or insane or both. The evidence against you is strong. I think I am right in saying that everyone would also agree that admitting your wrong doing and what you would call repenting is a good thing. My thoughts as an atheist are that praying to your god is pointless if you don’t also confess to your peers. I imagine most christians would agree. Please do that, Richard.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>