Sadness as Roman Catholic charity says it may stop adoption service (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

They are a private company and can what they see fit but whatever work in adoption they do not do Social Services will have to pick up.

Bradford Council’s executive member for Children’s Services Councillor Ralph Berry said: “It saddens me that organisations with a strong record in the area feel unable to contribute to the system."

Saddens me that the Councillor does not understand the Christian faith and how these people put the teachings of their faith first. Certainly in this instance the Councillor is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Crazy Britain and even crazier
Officials.

"Saddens me that the Councillor does not understand the Christian faith and how these people put the teachings of their faith first."

Saddens me that they don't put the interests of the children in front of the dogma of their cult.

JohnnyDale wrote:
"Saddens me that the Councillor does not understand the Christian faith and how these people put the teachings of their faith first."

Saddens me that they don't put the interests of the children in front of the dogma of their cult.

^^^^^^^ Exactly this. Well said sir.

The Catholic Church and the other made up religions(all of them) should just fade away slowly, die out and never rear the pointless, ugly, lying, murderous, child abusing, wife abusing, woman hating, war mongering heads again. If they do the intelligent mass should chop of it's head with the sword of fact and relaity.

I'm not a follower of any religious structure, but I applaud the Catholic church for sticking to it's principles. The same can't be said for the church of England who seem to frequently compromise their beliefs in a vain attempt to be seen as trendy.

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:

JohnnyDale wrote:
"Saddens me that the Councillor does not understand the Christian faith and how these people put the teachings of their faith first."

Saddens me that they don't put the interests of the children in front of the dogma of their cult.

^^^^^^^ Exactly this. Well said sir.

The Catholic Church and the other made up religions(all of them) should just fade away slowly, die out and never rear the pointless, ugly, lying, murderous, child abusing, wife abusing, woman hating, war mongering heads again. If they do the intelligent mass should chop of it's head with the sword of fact and relaity.

Fully agree! But it'll be a long time before it happens, especially with the more recent imported followings.

The point that many are missing is that as a registered charity, Catholic care cared for and still care for many people who needed support and help in many ways. Shutting the adoption service down because of their stance on same sex couples simply means that more unwanted children, or children born into promblem situations, will become the responsibility of an already overworked and underfunded social services department, rather than being cared for by a charity with an excellent track record in our locality.
there are other agencies that enable same sex couples to adopt, so why the need to force this agenda on all?

Old Dave wrote:
The point that many are missing is that as a registered charity, Catholic care cared for and still care for many people who needed support and help in many ways. Shutting the adoption service down because of their stance on same sex couples simply means that more unwanted children, or children born into promblem situations, will become the responsibility of an already overworked and underfunded social services department, rather than being cared for by a charity with an excellent track record in our locality.
there are other agencies that enable same sex couples to adopt, so why the need to force this agenda on all?

To be honest with the Catholic track record for protecting children it is probably a good thing. My grandfather, a devout Catholic up to ten years prior to his death renounced his religion due to the behaviour of priests and subsequent cover ups by local bishops right through to the repugnant pope

I wondered how long it would be until this "argument" was made!

So, out of one billion Catholics on our planet, the actions of a fraction of a percentage of them tars all with the same brush? Which other race/religion/cultur
e would allow this to happen?

The way that the Church and other organisations, dealt with child sex abuse allegations in the past is unacceptable, and the Pope has stated this. That does not mean that all Catholics are child abusers.
The fact is that Catholic care (Diocese of Leeds) is ceasing to act as an adoption agency because of laws on equality. The only consequence is that vulnerable young people now, in 2012 are having the chance to go to lovong homes taken away, because the Catholic care agency follows the basic Christian principle that, where possible, the best place for a child to be brought up is in a married family environment with a mother and a father.

I agree with them completely and I am not even Christian.

A child needs a mum and a dad. It needs a male and female influence in it's life. It does not need two mums or two dads, this is totally unnatural and I could see it leading to the poor child being bullied in school. Not only does that child have the emotional baggage of coming from a broken hime, but it now has the stress of being bullied for having gay adoptive parents, stress that was heaped on them by the equalities industry, to deal with.

The reason same-sex couples cannot produce children without outside help is because nature intended it that way.

I am certain that this is an attempt by the government to break down and undermine the family unit and they are using these gays as their tool to do this.

And I noticed someone also mentioned the Catholic Church's link to paedophilia in an attempt to discredit their integrity. So make of the following information what you will.

1) The first gay couple who were allowed to foster kids in the UK, Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey, were eventually jailed for sexually abuding children who had been placed into their care. Social services had allowed them to get away with it for a long time as they were scared of being called "Homophobic"

2) The government who forced this bill allowing gays to adopt/foster are the same government who used to put children into the care of places like Haut Dela Garenne in Jersey where they were systematically raped and in some cases murdered. The same government fired the cop who was invesigating this case because he was opening cans of worms that they wanted to stay closed (such as freemasons involvement) and replaced him with cops from the mainland who are currently trying to cover this up.

And won't be indoctrinated from a young age to believe fairy stories, modern thinking and records are disproving that children with the 'normal' parental upbringing go on to be any more loved, successful or better human beings than children form single parent families or those of same sex 'parents'.

The Catholic church's bigotry and shortsightedness is damaging in the modern world. As are all religions.

If religion really wanted to make a difference they should hold their hands up and say, 'we've been having you all on for hundreds of years' . What we will do to rectify this is sell our land, gold and buildings and make life easier for people. We don't know that there is a God, so to have special built buildings is a waste of money, give to those needier than you and use your own home to talk to your own god.

thelastmanstanding wrote:
I agree with them completely and I am not even Christian. A child needs a mum and a dad. It needs a male and female influence in it's life. It does not need two mums or two dads, this is totally unnatural and I could see it leading to the poor child being bullied in school. Not only does that child have the emotional baggage of coming from a broken hime, but it now has the stress of being bullied for having gay adoptive parents, stress that was heaped on them by the equalities industry, to deal with. The reason same-sex couples cannot produce children without outside help is because nature intended it that way. I am certain that this is an attempt by the government to break down and undermine the family unit and they are using these gays as their tool to do this. And I noticed someone also mentioned the Catholic Church's link to paedophilia in an attempt to discredit their integrity. So make of the following information what you will. 1) The first gay couple who were allowed to foster kids in the UK, Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey, were eventually jailed for sexually abuding children who had been placed into their care. Social services had allowed them to get away with it for a long time as they were scared of being called "Homophobic" 2) The government who forced this bill allowing gays to adopt/foster are the same government who used to put children into the care of places like Haut Dela Garenne in Jersey where they were systematically raped and in some cases murdered. The same government fired the cop who was invesigating this case because he was opening cans of worms that they wanted to stay closed (such as freemasons involvement) and replaced him with cops from the mainland who are currently trying to cover this up.

well said
could not have put it any better myself

thackley wrote:

thelastmanstanding wrote:
I agree with them completely and I am not even Christian. A child needs a mum and a dad. It needs a male and female influence in it's life. It does not need two mums or two dads, this is totally unnatural and I could see it leading to the poor child being bullied in school. Not only does that child have the emotional baggage of coming from a broken hime, but it now has the stress of being bullied for having gay adoptive parents, stress that was heaped on them by the equalities industry, to deal with. The reason same-sex couples cannot produce children without outside help is because nature intended it that way. I am certain that this is an attempt by the government to break down and undermine the family unit and they are using these gays as their tool to do this. And I noticed someone also mentioned the Catholic Church's link to paedophilia in an attempt to discredit their integrity. So make of the following information what you will. 1) The first gay couple who were allowed to foster kids in the UK, Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey, were eventually jailed for sexually abuding children who had been placed into their care. Social services had allowed them to get away with it for a long time as they were scared of being called "Homophobic" 2) The government who forced this bill allowing gays to adopt/foster are the same government who used to put children into the care of places like Haut Dela Garenne in Jersey where they were systematically raped and in some cases murdered. The same government fired the cop who was invesigating this case because he was opening cans of worms that they wanted to stay closed (such as freemasons involvement) and replaced him with cops from the mainland who are currently trying to cover this up.

well said
could not have put it any better myself

What tosh. The Government that brought in legal adoption for gay couples were not in power, probably not out of school when children were farmed out to the Jersey home, N Wales home in question currently.

The one example given re Craig Faunch and partner undermines the good and loving homes that many same sex couples do give to adopted children. There are no links to a gay person also being a paedophile as David Cameron vehmenetly pointed out last week.

A tough one. I sympathise with the many good and sound same-sex couples who could no doubt give a confortable home to a needy child, and who would value that sense of worth in thier lives. However, with the best will in the world, same-sex relationships are not "normal" and should not be offered as the model for a youngster in their formative years.
That said, in the 21st century, i'd be hard pressed to justify a child being forced to be brought up in a religious household; a household founded on myths and fairy stories is hardly the best start in life in a technological and evidence based world. Whether blinkered and misguided, like Christians; or blinkered, misguided, mediaeval, violent and mysogynistic, like some of our imported religions, they should all be banned as foster carers or adoptive parents.

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:

thackley wrote:

thelastmanstanding wrote:
I agree with them completely and I am not even Christian. A child needs a mum and a dad. It needs a male and female influence in it's life. It does not need two mums or two dads, this is totally unnatural and I could see it leading to the poor child being bullied in school. Not only does that child have the emotional baggage of coming from a broken hime, but it now has the stress of being bullied for having gay adoptive parents, stress that was heaped on them by the equalities industry, to deal with. The reason same-sex couples cannot produce children without outside help is because nature intended it that way. I am certain that this is an attempt by the government to break down and undermine the family unit and they are using these gays as their tool to do this. And I noticed someone also mentioned the Catholic Church's link to paedophilia in an attempt to discredit their integrity. So make of the following information what you will. 1) The first gay couple who were allowed to foster kids in the UK, Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey, were eventually jailed for sexually abuding children who had been placed into their care. Social services had allowed them to get away with it for a long time as they were scared of being called "Homophobic" 2) The government who forced this bill allowing gays to adopt/foster are the same government who used to put children into the care of places like Haut Dela Garenne in Jersey where they were systematically raped and in some cases murdered. The same government fired the cop who was invesigating this case because he was opening cans of worms that they wanted to stay closed (such as freemasons involvement) and replaced him with cops from the mainland who are currently trying to cover this up.

well said
could not have put it any better myself

What tosh. The Government that brought in legal adoption for gay couples were not in power, probably not out of school when children were farmed out to the Jersey home, N Wales home in question currently.

The one example given re Craig Faunch and partner undermines the good and loving homes that many same sex couples do give to adopted children. There are no links to a gay person also being a paedophile as David Cameron vehmenetly pointed out last week.

The government that is currently in power now fired an honest policeman called Lenny Harper, who was making real progress and he was replaced by DS Michael Gradwell who claims that his predecessor's team never found 9 milk teeth and 30 pieces of skeletal remains and is currently whitewashing the whole investigation and trying to sweep it under the carpet.
Please do some research before calling anyone else a liar.

I acknowledge Gay person does not = paedophile. However, my comment was in response to the comment that tried to make out that Catholic = paedophile.

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:

Old Dave wrote:
The point that many are missing is that as a registered charity, Catholic care cared for and still care for many people who needed support and help in many ways. Shutting the adoption service down because of their stance on same sex couples simply means that more unwanted children, or children born into promblem situations, will become the responsibility of an already overworked and underfunded social services department, rather than being cared for by a charity with an excellent track record in our locality.
there are other agencies that enable same sex couples to adopt, so why the need to force this agenda on all?

To be honest with the Catholic track record for protecting children it is probably a good thing. My grandfather, a devout Catholic up to ten years prior to his death renounced his religion due to the behaviour of priests and subsequent cover ups by local bishops right through to the repugnant pope

He can't have been very "devout" if he was willing to renounce those beliefs over the actions of humans. What a complete pillock.

Also, I noticed you felt it necessary to use this messageboard to ridicule people's religious beliefs, yet when I point out an uncomfortable statistic about gay adoption you get all butthurt and start falsely accusing me of being a liar.

Care to explain your behaviour?

thelastmanstanding wrote:

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:

Old Dave wrote:
The point that many are missing is that as a registered charity, Catholic care cared for and still care for many people who needed support and help in many ways. Shutting the adoption service down because of their stance on same sex couples simply means that more unwanted children, or children born into promblem situations, will become the responsibility of an already overworked and underfunded social services department, rather than being cared for by a charity with an excellent track record in our locality.
there are other agencies that enable same sex couples to adopt, so why the need to force this agenda on all?

To be honest with the Catholic track record for protecting children it is probably a good thing. My grandfather, a devout Catholic up to ten years prior to his death renounced his religion due to the behaviour of priests and subsequent cover ups by local bishops right through to the repugnant pope

He can't have been very "devout" if he was willing to renounce those beliefs over the actions of humans. What a complete pillock.

You have just called my now deceased grandfather, who fought for rights of all of us a pillock for seeing sense and renouncing medieval thinking.

Go find some traffic you absolute tube.

I will ridicule any and all religious belief as it is complete fantasy. I would allow my child to think there were angels/god/fairies/d
ragons I would laugh in the face of any adult with the same thoughts.

Crawl back under the bishop's robes and suck.

thelastmanstanding wrote:

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:

thackley wrote:

thelastmanstanding wrote:
I agree with them completely and I am not even Christian. A child needs a mum and a dad. It needs a male and female influence in it's life. It does not need two mums or two dads, this is totally unnatural and I could see it leading to the poor child being bullied in school. Not only does that child have the emotional baggage of coming from a broken hime, but it now has the stress of being bullied for having gay adoptive parents, stress that was heaped on them by the equalities industry, to deal with. The reason same-sex couples cannot produce children without outside help is because nature intended it that way. I am certain that this is an attempt by the government to break down and undermine the family unit and they are using these gays as their tool to do this. And I noticed someone also mentioned the Catholic Church's link to paedophilia in an attempt to discredit their integrity. So make of the following information what you will. 1) The first gay couple who were allowed to foster kids in the UK, Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey, were eventually jailed for sexually abuding children who had been placed into their care. Social services had allowed them to get away with it for a long time as they were scared of being called "Homophobic" 2) The government who forced this bill allowing gays to adopt/foster are the same government who used to put children into the care of places like Haut Dela Garenne in Jersey where they were systematically raped and in some cases murdered. The same government fired the cop who was invesigating this case because he was opening cans of worms that they wanted to stay closed (such as freemasons involvement) and replaced him with cops from the mainland who are currently trying to cover this up.

well said
could not have put it any better myself

What tosh. The Government that brought in legal adoption for gay couples were not in power, probably not out of school when children were farmed out to the Jersey home, N Wales home in question currently.

The one example given re Craig Faunch and partner undermines the good and loving homes that many same sex couples do give to adopted children. There are no links to a gay person also being a paedophile as David Cameron vehmenetly pointed out last week.

The government that is currently in power now fired an honest policeman called Lenny Harper, who was making real progress and he was replaced by DS Michael Gradwell who claims that his predecessor's team never found 9 milk teeth and 30 pieces of skeletal remains and is currently whitewashing the whole investigation and trying to sweep it under the carpet.
Please do some research before calling anyone else a liar.

I acknowledge Gay person does not = paedophile. However, my comment was in response to the comment that tried to make out that Catholic = paedophile.

THIS government were not in power when the children were farmed out. They were not out of school themselves at the time this began. Get your story straight tube. If you meant the inquiry you should have stated that.

The party may have been, these encumbents weren't

thelastmanstanding wrote:
Also, I noticed you felt it necessary to use this messageboard to ridicule people's religious beliefs, yet when I point out an uncomfortable statistic about gay adoption you get all butthurt and start falsely accusing me of being a liar.

Care to explain your behaviour?

Yep, gay people are real living souls with as much right to life as I, I would say you but after your comment re my Grandfather I am wishing the opposite.

People with religious beliefs need locking away from modern society so they can fervently rub each other's bells.

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:

thelastmanstanding wrote:

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:

Old Dave wrote:
The point that many are missing is that as a registered charity, Catholic care cared for and still care for many people who needed support and help in many ways. Shutting the adoption service down because of their stance on same sex couples simply means that more unwanted children, or children born into promblem situations, will become the responsibility of an already overworked and underfunded social services department, rather than being cared for by a charity with an excellent track record in our locality.
there are other agencies that enable same sex couples to adopt, so why the need to force this agenda on all?

To be honest with the Catholic track record for protecting children it is probably a good thing. My grandfather, a devout Catholic up to ten years prior to his death renounced his religion due to the behaviour of priests and subsequent cover ups by local bishops right through to the repugnant pope

He can't have been very "devout" if he was willing to renounce those beliefs over the actions of humans. What a complete pillock.

You have just called my now deceased grandfather, who fought for rights of all of us a pillock for seeing sense and renouncing medieval thinking.

Go find some traffic you absolute tube.

I will ridicule any and all religious belief as it is complete fantasy. I would allow my child to think there were angels/god/fairies/d

ragons I would laugh in the face of any adult with the same thoughts.

Crawl back under the bishop's robes and suck.

Go on then, ridicule Judaism and we will see how quickly you are called a nazi and thrown in prison.

Or are you one of these cowards who only attacks Christianity because you see it as a soft target?

I bet you thought "Life Of Brian" was funny, but found "Innocence of Muslims" offensive.

It may be a painful truth, but if your deceased grandparent was willing to renounce his religious beliefs over the actions of humans then hd was a pillock, and it seem's that it runs in the family.

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:

thelastmanstanding wrote:

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:

thackley wrote:

thelastmanstanding wrote:
I agree with them completely and I am not even Christian. A child needs a mum and a dad. It needs a male and female influence in it's life. It does not need two mums or two dads, this is totally unnatural and I could see it leading to the poor child being bullied in school. Not only does that child have the emotional baggage of coming from a broken hime, but it now has the stress of being bullied for having gay adoptive parents, stress that was heaped on them by the equalities industry, to deal with. The reason same-sex couples cannot produce children without outside help is because nature intended it that way. I am certain that this is an attempt by the government to break down and undermine the family unit and they are using these gays as their tool to do this. And I noticed someone also mentioned the Catholic Church's link to paedophilia in an attempt to discredit their integrity. So make of the following information what you will. 1) The first gay couple who were allowed to foster kids in the UK, Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey, were eventually jailed for sexually abuding children who had been placed into their care. Social services had allowed them to get away with it for a long time as they were scared of being called "Homophobic" 2) The government who forced this bill allowing gays to adopt/foster are the same government who used to put children into the care of places like Haut Dela Garenne in Jersey where they were systematically raped and in some cases murdered. The same government fired the cop who was invesigating this case because he was opening cans of worms that they wanted to stay closed (such as freemasons involvement) and replaced him with cops from the mainland who are currently trying to cover this up.

well said
could not have put it any better myself

What tosh. The Government that brought in legal adoption for gay couples were not in power, probably not out of school when children were farmed out to the Jersey home, N Wales home in question currently.

The one example given re Craig Faunch and partner undermines the good and loving homes that many same sex couples do give to adopted children. There are no links to a gay person also being a paedophile as David Cameron vehmenetly pointed out last week.

The government that is currently in power now fired an honest policeman called Lenny Harper, who was making real progress and he was replaced by DS Michael Gradwell who claims that his predecessor's team never found 9 milk teeth and 30 pieces of skeletal remains and is currently whitewashing the whole investigation and trying to sweep it under the carpet.
Please do some research before calling anyone else a liar.

I acknowledge Gay person does not = paedophile. However, my comment was in response to the comment that tried to make out that Catholic = paedophile.

THIS government were not in power when the children were farmed out. They were not out of school themselves at the time this began. Get your story straight tube. If you meant the inquiry you should have stated that.

The party may have been, these encumbents weren't

Tell us when Haut Dela Garenne closed as a childrens home. Don't need the exact date, just the year will do.

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:

thelastmanstanding wrote:
Also, I noticed you felt it necessary to use this messageboard to ridicule people's religious beliefs, yet when I point out an uncomfortable statistic about gay adoption you get all butthurt and start falsely accusing me of being a liar.

Care to explain your behaviour?

Yep, gay people are real living souls with as much right to life as I, I would say you but after your comment re my Grandfather I am wishing the opposite.

People with religious beliefs need locking away from modern society so they can fervently rub each other's bells.

You would lock people away for their religious beliefs? Homofascist!

They should have neutered that idiotic grandparent of yours to prevent this line of idiocy that he has spawned. Whilst reading your posts, I feel like I am being bukkake'd with stupidity.

thelastmanstandingsa
id:

'I feel like I am being bukkake'd with stupidity'.

Lol! (*note to the curious: if the word is unfamiliar to you, do NOT google it)

Apologies for my use of crude language Patrick, and anyone else who is reading, but he had already degraded the conversation with this pearl of wisdom:

"Crawl back under the bishop's robes and suck."

and he was starting to get on my nerves.

I had already said I am not a Christian. I was christened as a child but left the church because I didn't believe in the theology (not because of the actions of humans, like this prat's grandad did). I dont believe that there is a god loves all humans unconditionally, unless of course they don't live by his rules and then he will send the devil to do his dirty work by punishing them with the fiery depths. (which also rules out just about any other conventional religion for me).

However, I will champion the rights of other people who wish to believe in this, to do so without fear of persecution. I believe religious freedom and freedom of speech are an essential part of civilised society and this should not be compromised by nasty little communist dictators such as "Prisoner Cell Block A"

thelastmanstanding wrote:

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:

thelastmanstanding wrote:

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:

thackley wrote:

thelastmanstanding wrote:
I agree with them completely and I am not even Christian. A child needs a mum and a dad. It needs a male and female influence in it's life. It does not need two mums or two dads, this is totally unnatural and I could see it leading to the poor child being bullied in school. Not only does that child have the emotional baggage of coming from a broken hime, but it now has the stress of being bullied for having gay adoptive parents, stress that was heaped on them by the equalities industry, to deal with. The reason same-sex couples cannot produce children without outside help is because nature intended it that way. I am certain that this is an attempt by the government to break down and undermine the family unit and they are using these gays as their tool to do this. And I noticed someone also mentioned the Catholic Church's link to paedophilia in an attempt to discredit their integrity. So make of the following information what you will. 1) The first gay couple who were allowed to foster kids in the UK, Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey, were eventually jailed for sexually abuding children who had been placed into their care. Social services had allowed them to get away with it for a long time as they were scared of being called "Homophobic" 2) The government who forced this bill allowing gays to adopt/foster are the same government who used to put children into the care of places like Haut Dela Garenne in Jersey where they were systematically raped and in some cases murdered. The same government fired the cop who was invesigating this case because he was opening cans of worms that they wanted to stay closed (such as freemasons involvement) and replaced him with cops from the mainland who are currently trying to cover this up.

well said
could not have put it any better myself

What tosh. The Government that brought in legal adoption for gay couples were not in power, probably not out of school when children were farmed out to the Jersey home, N Wales home in question currently.

The one example given re Craig Faunch and partner undermines the good and loving homes that many same sex couples do give to adopted children. There are no links to a gay person also being a paedophile as David Cameron vehmenetly pointed out last week.

The government that is currently in power now fired an honest policeman called Lenny Harper, who was making real progress and he was replaced by DS Michael Gradwell who claims that his predecessor's team never found 9 milk teeth and 30 pieces of skeletal remains and is currently whitewashing the whole investigation and trying to sweep it under the carpet.
Please do some research before calling anyone else a liar.

I acknowledge Gay person does not = paedophile. However, my comment was in response to the comment that tried to make out that Catholic = paedophile.

THIS government were not in power when the children were farmed out. They were not out of school themselves at the time this began. Get your story straight tube. If you meant the inquiry you should have stated that.

The party may have been, these encumbents weren't

Tell us when Haut Dela Garenne closed as a childrens home. Don't need the exact date, just the year will do.

What has the date of closure got to do with the child abuse or the government currently in power? They were not the encumbents at the time nor at the time of the abuse. Which was your original point.

But to answer you, 1986, wikipedia not able to give you a month to verify then?

Anyone who believes in a deity, angels, fairies, dragons really does need to be locked away from society so as not to taint a free thinking and rational world. As someone who is obviously intelligent and has apparently already made the distinction between realism and theism I don't know how you could bear to champion the rights of those who hold the beliefs. I am not attacking Christians, I am anti all religion, and people who BELIEVE are throwbacks to medieval times and medieval thinking. My wife is half-Jewish, I was Christened, my children haven't been.

And they certainly shouldn't have a say in any law making or policy decisions. Religitards that is, not my children, they shouldn't have a say either.

btw, bukkake'd with idiocy, very good.

Did that occur whilst under the robes? Do you call the outpouring idiocy and thank the lord for it?

I am also for total freedom of speech, just not from mind fuggled fools.

And as you mentioned them, Jewish Rabbi in Australia has just told sexual abuse victims that to come forward and report abuse is a sin and they will be outcast from the Jewish community. Even children as young as 5 have been spoken about with their **** for sex including with animals.

Religion is one of the biggest haters and blocks to freedom of anything, especially speech.

The idealogy of any religion is to use fear to control idiotic masses and boy are they successful, reason being the world is full of idiots who are unable to think for themselves.

After years of indoctrination and then the unravelling of the Catholic church my Grandfather was able to see 'the light' at last and renounce his faith and any/all faiths for the sham and mockery they actually are.

Prisoner CELL Block A says:

"They were not the encumbents at the time nor at the time of the abuse. Which was your original point.

But to answer you, 1986"

Right, so in 1986, was Jack Straw not in Parliament back then? Straw, the man who covered Pakistani paedophile rings right up until the point where it was no longer his problem and even tried to have two men thrown in prison for speaking on the subject in a private meeting?

Or what about Harriet Harman, the woman who tried to lower the age of consent to 14 and campaigned on behalf of the paedophile information exchange to have child **** legalised, was she not in government?

That's just 2 that I can think of off the top of my head.

Evil people also then.

I was more referring to the part lead but cannot ignore your point.

Prisoner Cell Block A:
"Anyone who believes in a deity, angels, fairies, dragons really does need to be locked away from society so as not to taint a free thinking and rational world."

That Sir, is fascism, pure and simple. People have the right to believe in whatever they like, without fear of persecution, even if we can see what they believe in is wrong, who are you to take their right to a belief away in the name of "Free Thinking"? Do you not see the hypocrisy in your statement? If you lock them up for their beliefs, you are locking them up for not thinking the way you want them to think?


PCBA Says:
And they certainly shouldn't have a say in any law making or policy decisions.

If the public have voted them into power then yes they should. that is the beauty of democracy, the public have given them a mandate to make laws and decide upon policy.


PCBA says:
"I am also for total freedom of speech, just not from mind fuggled fools"

Then you are not for total freedom of speech as you are attaching conditions to it. You are saying that only people who believe in the things that you want them to believe in are entitled to free speech.



PCBA Says:
"The idealogy of any religion is to use fear to control idiotic masses and boy are they successful, reason being the world is full of idiots who are unable to think for themselves."

Agreed to an extent. Any religion that threatens to punish people with devils, fiery depths, etc is, in my opinion, a false religion. This is their way of controlling their subscribers. However, that doesn't mean people who believe in this are any less entitled to speak their mind than the rest of us.

Wow, being systematically taken apart.


Rationally and with reason.


Loud shouty statements by myself probably deserved it.

There can be no caveat to 'free speech' you are indeed correct.


Whilst loving a democratic society I can't help but feel it sometimes works against us.


I will never be able to accept the views of any religion or religious person and my reasosn are 'legion' but once again, you are correct, I cannot stop or want to stop them holding those views.

Pity that many religious types won't hold the same view.

Indeed democracy does work against us. It is flawed because it is the rule of the majority.... but since when have the majority been right about anything?

Block Muslim votes, corrupt Postal vote scams (where people who moved out of that address years ago get a postal vote and that vote is cast), the Labour party plying women with generous benefits for having illegitimate fatherless babies that they have no means of independently financially supporting..... The party that wins, is the party that has the ability to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And up until the arrival of Galloway's party, the Labour Party had it sewn up.

""Right, so in 1986, was Jack Straw not in Parliament back then? Straw, the man who covered Pakistani paedophile rings right up until the point where it was no longer his problem and even tried to have two men thrown in prison for speaking on the subject in a private meeting?

Or what about Harriet Harman, the woman who tried to lower the age of consent to 14 and campaigned on behalf of the paedophile information exchange to have child **** legalised, was she not in government?""


I knew something was bothering me, neither were in Government in 1986, Conservatives then as now were, both the above mentioned are labour politicians and I'm not even sure either were in the shadow cabinet at that time either.

Still doesn't detract from their cover ups or idiotic attempts to change policy to lower the age of consent, if that is as you point it out. Are you sure it wasn't just a lobby to lower the legal age of consent for homosexuals from 18 to 16 back then?

They may both have been in opposition, but they were still in a position to speak about it in Parliament and put an end to the abuse, but neither did.

Other currently serving MPs who were in Parliament back then and decided to remain silent are Edward Leigh (Con), David McLean (Con), Michael Mates (Con), Richard Shepherd (Con), Sir Michael Spicer (Con), Sir John Stanley (Con), Sir Michael Vigers (Con), Lady Ann Winterton (Con), Sir Allen Hazelhurst (Con), Roger Gale (Con), Eric Forth (Con), Patrick Cormack (Con), Kenneth Clarke QC (Con), Sir John Butterfil (Con), Tony Baldry (Con), Paddy Ashdown (Lib)..... I could keep typing but I think you get the point. Not one of these people who were in government did a thing to stop it. They never uttered a single word about it in the House of Treason, they didn't even sign an Early Day Motion.

Going back to the first odious two that I mentioned, Jack Straw's brother has convictions for paedophilia, his son is a convicted drug dealer and his father was a coward who chose to go to prison instead of fighting for his country in a time of war. (What a lovely family, he must be so proud)

Harriett Harman (aka Cruella De Ville) - The Daily Telegraph obtained document revealing that she called upon other ministers to make s-exuay explicit films and photographs of children legal, unless their was clear evidence that the child had been harmed.

At the time she made this official submission she was a key figure in a civil liberties organisation called "National Council for Civil Liberties" (now known as "Liberty") that wanted the age of consent lowered to 14 and incest decriminalised. It also defended self-confessed paedophiles in the press and allowed them to attend it's meetings.

Among the groups affiliated with Harman's NCCL were the "Paedophile Information Exchange" and "Paedophile Action for Liberation" who's members demanded the age of consent be scrapped altogether.

What a truly evil, vile, nasty piece of work this woman is. She was not expelled when Labour found out about her past, she was promoted to their front bench.

Truly vile and repugnant. I have a dislike and mistrust of politicians in general, a necessary evil but just wish they were not so self-serving.


Odd you mention KCQC, there was a report a few weeks back from a child actor, Ben Fellows. I'll say no more as to what the report said but google the two names, the content probably won't be a surprise but due to the recent McAlpine situation I have decided to point people to things rather than report verbatim.

Another thing to google for information about political deviants and criminals is "Labour 25" or "Liars, Buggers and Thieves".

After Tony Blair and David Cameron with their scandals, cover ups, immigration free-for-all, tax on everything, ridiculously high fuel duty, etc I honestly cannot understand why any white person would vote Labour, Tory or LibDem.