Shadow government, Big Koch and Non Interventionism

Been busy at the Daily Stirrer, stirring things. I should do more here but it’s so hard to attract traffic to blog.co.uk these days.

Here are a few of Little Nicky’s latest efforts to stick pins in the bloated bottoms of the establishment.

The Shadow Government.
You might think our elected leaders run our nations but in reality secretive cliques exercise the real power

Big Green Versus Big Koch
As the war between scaremongering, Warmageddonist supporters of Big Green and the champions of level headed common sense and healthy scepticism becomes more and more reminiscent of the bloody civil war in Syria, The Daily Stirrer brings news of another defector from the climate science fascism camp. And this time it is a major front man of the global warming conspiracy.

Libertarianism is not Laissez Faire.
People on the left and right of the political spectrum are attacking libertarians by trying to claim non interventionist foreign policy is lazy and weak. On the contrary, laissez – faire as a foreign policy is both carefully though through to work in the national interest and for the greatest good of the greatest number. Liberal interventionism however can only make things worse for everybody.

The Daily Stirrer
Greenteeth Labyrinth

Sugary Drinks Tax To Pay For School Meals Healthy Options

Sugary drinks should be taxed at up to 20p a litre, say health campaigners – with the proceeds helping to pay for free school meals.

Picking up on an idea first floated during the era of the Neo Fascist New Labour government, food and farming charity Sustain said the Government could raise £1bn a year from a tax on sugary drinks, while also saving lives by cutting excessive consumption of unhealthy substances.

As if to demonstrate that fascism is alive and well in the public and charity sector the report has been backed by more than 60 organisations, including the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, Friends of the Earth, the National Heart Forum and the Royal Society for Public Health.

Diet-related illness is now costing the NHS £6bn every year, the report said although these statistics have been exposed as deeply flawed and in the case of many ‘scientific’ studies, blatantly fabricated.

Sustain urged Chancellor George Osborne to introduce the duty in the Budget on March 20 and to channel most of the cash raised into a Children’s Future Fund for programmes to improve children’s health. Money could be spent on campaigns to encourage youngsters to eat more fruit and vegetables, the report said. Erm, didn’t that fat tongued twat Jamie Oliver try bullying kids into eating more fruit and veg? And weren’t the results disastrous. I seem to remember reports of kids digging tunnels, disguising themselves as binmen, making hot air balloons out of condoms and doing all kinds of things to escape from school and get to the chip shop or kebab van at lunchtime.

Sustain’s campaigns manager, Charlie Powell, said: “Sugar-laden drinks are mini-health time bombs, contributing to dental diseases, obesity and a host of life-threatening illnesses which cost the NHS billions each year. “We are delighted that so many organisations want to challenge the Government to show it has a public health backbone by including a sugary drinks duty in Budget 2013. It’s a simple and easy-to-understand measure which will help save lives by reducing sugar in our diets and raising much-needed money to protect children’s health.”

Ummm – anything to substantiate that £billions a year claim Charlie, or was it, like the safe alcohol comsumption figure and the BMI ratio at which we become obese, plucked scientifically out of thin air?

Sustain chairman Mike Rayner, of Oxford University’s Department of Public Health, added: “Just as we use fiscal measures to discourage drinking and smoking and help prevent people from dying early, there is now lots of evidence that the same approach would work for food. Our obesity epidemic causes debilitating illness, life-threatening diseases and misery for millions of people. It is high time Government did something effective about this problem.”

Oxford University? Ah, so they’re not farmers and cooks at Sustain then, they’re Oxford University cocooned tax eaters. Very likely the only thing they want to sustain is the flow of research grants that will keep them in featherbedded luxury.

It’s never about public health, it’s always about the people who advise the government on public health.

Antibiotic resistant diseases pose existential threat to humanity say health experts.

Antibiotic-resistant diseases pose existential threat to humanity threat, top expert says

Once again detractors of Little Nicky Machiavelli are eating humble pie. They sneered when we criticized efforts to make a vaccine for everything, they mocked when we said that compulsory medication of the whole population was not only a violation of our human rights under the Geneva Convention and also counter productive because bacteria have as strong a survival instinct as higher mammals and are better equipped to adapt rapidly to environmental threats.

And now we are sitting in the pub, eating tasty snacks, drinking excellent beer and wallowing in schadenfreude as our critics run around wearing sackcloth and ashes and crying “WOE WOE WOE.”

Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical officer, has given MPs a stark warning that the rise in drug-resistant diseases could trigger a national emergency comparable to a catastrophic terrorist attack, pandemic flu or major coastal flooding.

Dame Sally said the threat from well known infections that through casual exposure have become resistant to commonly used antibiotics was so serious the issue should be put on the government’s national risk register of civil emergencies.

She described what she called an “apocalyptic scenario” where people going for simple operations in 20 years’ time die of routine infections “because we have run out of antibiotics”. The problem is that on top of overprescription of antibiotics by doctors, often for minor illnesses against which antibiotics are not effective (i.e. those caused by viruses) and the presence of penicillin in the food chain due to the practice of adding it to animal feeds to accelerate weight gain) have enabled bacteria to exploit the evolutionary principle of “what does not kill me makes me stronger.”

Meanwhile over medication has weakened the human immine system. Changes in modern medicine have exacerbated the problem by making patients more susceptible to infections. For example, many cancer treatments are known to weaken the immune system, and the use of catheters increases the chances of bacteria entering the bloodstream.

Davies declined to elaborate on the report, but said its publication would coincide with a government strategy to promote more responsible use of antibiotics among doctors and the clinical professions. “We need to get our act together in this country,” she told the committee.

She told the news media: “There are few public health issues of potentially greater importance for society than antibiotic resistance. It means we are at increasing risk of developing infections that cannot be treated.” indeed, only a few weeks ago news reports were informing us that a new strain of gonorrhea that was resistant to all but one type of antibiotic had emerged

The issue of drug resistance is as old as antibiotics themselves, and arises when drugs knock out susceptible infections, leaving hardier, resilient strains behind. The survivors then multiply, and over time can become unstoppable with frontline medicines. Some of the best known are superbugs such as MRSA.

“In the past, most people haven’t worried because we’ve always had new antibiotics to turn to,” said Alan Johnson, consultant clinical scientist at the Health Protection Agency. “What has changed is that the development pipeline is running dry. We don’t have new antibiotics that we can rely on in the immediate future or in the longer term.”

RELATED POSTS:
Cheaper drugs now
Child Fever
Whos Afraid Of The Big Bad C

Drop The Penicillin, We Need A New Plan Against Bacteria
Microwave Cure For high Blood Pressure
The secret to why the French live longer – Roquefort cheese

Whos Afraid Of The Big Bad C

We Told You So, Mobile Phones Do Cause Brain Tumours
No Cure For Cancer

Food Fascists Spread Fear and Panic About The Obesity Pandemic
Banning Words Like “Fatty” Is Not Being Caring And Nice,
Diabetes Blogger Censored By Web – For Beating Diabetes.
Health Authorities Now Admit Severe Side Effects Of Vaccines
The Daily Stirrer

The Scientific Consensus That Didn’t Exist

The Scientific Consensus That Didn’t Exist

We all got fed up of hearing the two mantras of the global warming lobby a long time ago. To remind you, they were:

The science is settled.

and

Every respected scientist in the world supports the case for Anthropogenic Global Warming.

My friend and fellow member of the Really Awkward Buggars Union Graham Leah suspected this was not true as scientists scarcely agree on anything. So he did somne research on what respected scientists rather than government placemen media hacks have really been saying.

Bear in mind, we’re talking here about real scientists doing independent research in climate and environment related fiedls, not self serving bureaucrats of the United Nations IPCC,the self serving academics intent only on keeping their piggy snouts in the trough of taxpayers’ money or the empire building civil servants who just want bigger departments.

Researchers like:

Dr Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and UN-IPCC insider. NOT a sceptic of AGW to my knowledge

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

or:

Dr Benjamin Santer, author of the 2007 IPCC report chapter on the detection of greenhouse warming – NOT A SCEPTIC of AGW to my knowledge.

“It’s unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the (IPCC report) chapter “on the detection of greenhouse warming.” I think the caveats are there. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say that the attribution issue [man-made climate change] is a done deal.

&

Dr Richard Lindzen (Atmospheric Scientist) Professor at MIT UN-IPCC Lead Author

“The consensus was reached before the research had even begun.”

“It’s not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else…but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.”

&

Dr John Christy – Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama, Huntsville (also Alabama State Climatologist) UN IPCC Lead Author writes:

“I don’t see a catastrophe developing from our emissions into the air of what should be correctly identified as ‘plant food.'”

“Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I’m identified as an IPCC Lead Author}. The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the “informational cascade”) is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the “ones who know” (from the Latin sciere, to know).”

&

Russia – Dr Yury Izrael, past UN IPCC Vice President, director of Global Climate and Ecology Institute, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“There is no proven link between human activity and global warming.”

&

USA – Dr. Charles Wax, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.

“First off, there isn’t a consensus among scientists. Don’t let anybody tell you there is.”

Left Wing Newspaper Comes Out In Support Of Paedophiles

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100196562/the-guardian-speaks-up-for-paedophiles-flirts-with-anti-semitism-and-jumps-on-every-crazy-leftist-bandwagon-in-sight-what-happened-to-quality-control/

UPDATE:Even the Guardian’s left wing readers are outraged by sympathy for Paedophilia

The Guardian speaks up for paedophiles, flirts with anti-Semitism and jumps on every crazy Leftist bandwagon in sight. What happened to quality control?

You know how mad conservatives always used to say, “Some day we’ll be told to emphathise with paedophiles?” Well, we’ve reached that day. The Guardian has published a piece that calls for more understanding towards those who are attracted to children. It’s written in the same “thoughtful” and abstract tone that one might use when discussing the tragedy of an ingrowing toenail. As printed on the page, the editors pulled out a particularly bizarre quote and set it in bold: “We can maybe avoid the hysteria. We should respect and value those paedophiles who choose self-retraint.” Yeah, right. Give those guys a medal.

The Guardian has jumped the liberal shark. To be precise, it’s tried to jump the shark but run out of momentum half way and fallen into the animal’s gaping jaws. You don’t have to share The Guardian’s politics to regret its editorial decline. This is an important newspaper with a fine history that continues to do a great service by training up young journalists. But in recent years it has replaced comment with trolling, and allowed the trolling to obscure the everyday journalism. It has run pieces lamenting the collapse of communism, publicly accepted that some of its content has flirted with anti-Semitism and published a cartoon about Israel that caused great offence to some Jewish readers. Meanwhile, the online section called Comment is Free (better titled Comment is Cheap) has grown in to a behemoth of random, bizarre identity-politics polemics. The editorial staff would probably insist that they simply give a space for minority opinion, but that opinion is invariably Left-wing and outrageous. Britain might be a colonial power (I guess the sun never sets on the Isle of Man), the Catholic Church is EVIL and homophobic, and – I just love this title – The Norovirus Deserves Our Respect. Just like those self-retrained paedophiles!

The issue is less the Guardian’s political prejudice than the lack of editorial quality control. This article on paedophilia just plain sick. The problem is that it takes an objective tone when discussing something that isn’t an academic question: the potential or literal abuse of children. As a result, the objectivity betrays an openness towards the subject that is disturbing. Writer Jon Henley says, “There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.” How can any paedophilic relationships, by definition, be consensual? And just because a victim refuses to define as a victim, does that mean no harm is done? (Some rape victims bravely refuse to define as victims, but there’s no dispute that they’ve suffered a crime). Paedophiles, we discover, are a mixed bunch: “Not all paedophiles are child molesters, and vice versa.” Well bully for them – but if they access child pornography, which I presume they do, are they not engaging in vicarious molestation? Henley quotes stats that suggest there are more paedophiles than members of Mensa: “1-2% of men is a widely accepted figure.” Moreover, they might not be able to help themselves: “Paedophiles may be wired differently.”

But the worst section is where Henley quotes a “paedophilia advocate” as an appropriate source of commentary. Professional weirdo Tom O’Carroll tells him, “society’s outrage at paedophilic relationships is essentially irrational and not justified by science.” Henley quotes some experts to dispute O’Carroll’s opinion but then wheels out an academic study that suggests the “paedophile advocate” might have a point. After all, Henley continuously reminds us, “Not all experts are sure.” Do any of these dissenting voices have children themselves? If they did, they might discover a degree of certainty about the evils of paedophilia that has hitherto eluded them.

Finally, Henley finishes with a long quote that is utterly surreal: “Adult sexual attraction to children is part of the continuum of human sexuality; it’s not something we can eliminate … If we can talk about this rationally – acknowledge that, yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but not, they don’t have to act on it – we can maybe avoid the hysteria.” What hysteria? The hysteria that a parent might feel knowing that a man who finds their child sexually desirable is teaching in their school? Such “hysteria” is perfectly rational. A little like discovering that a man who has the desire to commit arson – but not yet acted on it! – has just been appointed foreman of a fireworks factory.

Henley’s piece is symptomatic of a world view that refuses to accept the existence of outright evil. There are, insist many liberals, shades of good and bad, reasons for why things are done, pills to be distributed and hugs to give. We must understand, but not judge – and if we do judge, let it be done with the desire to heal the culprit as well as the victim. At no point in this piece does Henley say that paedophilia is okay. But the strange, eerie absence of a clear editorial line – the same refusal to comment on or veto the mad opinions of many other writers in The Guardian – gives the feeling that the reader is supposed to remain “open-minded” on the subject.

But while there’s always something to be learned from criminal science, its goal is surely to create a safer society rather than one that finds peaceful and “rational” ways of tolerating the evil of others. Once we’ve finished all the cod philosophising, there are really only two things worth saying about paedophilia. It’s a perversion – and the guilty should be isolated from the rest of us.

RESPONSES IN THE COMMENTS THREAD ARE WORTH READING:

josiexuereb

7 minutes ago

The Lisbon Treaty has legalised paedophilia .

Article 21 covers discrimination against sexual orientation .
All previous treaties have included a protocol expressly excluding paedophilia .
This protocol is missing from the Lisbon Treaty . It could not have been an oversight .
This in effect makes the treaty a Paedophile Charter .

Paedophilia has always been acceptable in countries
like Belgium and Germany .

The German Government Childrens’ Department went as far as issuing a pamphlet distributed free of charge condoning sexual activity between parents and children .

I quote:
“Fathers do not divert enough attention to their daughters sexual organs ( more explicit in pamphlet) . Their caresses too seldom pertain to these regions, while this is the only way the girls can develop a pride in their sex ” .

Harriet harman and her husband Jack Dromey expressed their belief that paedophiles were a disadvantaged minority whose rights must be defended, decades ago.

Harman once worked for an organisation that included under its umbrella the Paedophile Exchange before the Exchange was closed down .
p.s. The organisation Harman worked for is now called LIBERTY

Asked for a link the commenter replied:

This appeared in Speigel, might help.
The link points to a german language article: “Körper, Liebe, Doktorspiele” Von der Leyen stoppt umstrittene Aufklärungsbroschüre

Hamburg – The title of the parent counselor sounds wicked. But for six years, no one has really bothered about it: “Body, Love, Play Doctor,” published by the Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA). A band dedicated to early childhood development during the first to third year of life, a second of the pre-development from the fourth to sixth year.

BZgAControversial Parents Guide: Ad for public invitation to sexual abuse of children
Now, however, was filed against author Ina-Maria Philipps and BZgA in Cologne public prosecutor display – due to public demand for child sexual abuse. “I received the brochure from friends and read – and was of the opinion that the so never forget,” said Ulla long SPIEGEL ONLINE that has reimbursed the display. The 64-year-old mother of two adult daughters complained several passages.
About this: It’s “just a sign of the healthy development of your child, if possible, to gain self-pleasure and satisfaction, extensively uses”. Or this: If girls – not even three years old – “objects to help take”, then you should not do that “as an excuse to prevent masturbation.” Or this: “vagina and clitoris especially experienced little attention by gentle touch (neither father nor mother) and thus make it more difficult for the girls to develop pride in his sexuality.”
“Some formulations misleading and ambiguous”
This last passage aroused anger now: For critics, it sounds like a hidden request, parents should contact the daughter between his legs. Irene Johns of child protection agency did not say that, “although the booklet is meant quite different, pedophiles might use them as an excuse.”
The Federal Ministry for Family Affairs has responded: The brochure was deleted from the repertoire of his educational work, and on the website of the BZgA she disappeared. Minister Ursula von der Leyen has (CDU) called certain statements as “borderline,” her spokeswoman said today. “Some formulations are misleading and ambiguous.”
Author Ina-Maria Philipps was not until the evening to reach for comment. BZgA Director Elisabeth Pott was surprised that now pay for the first time in six years misunderstandings and criticism is loud – but: “We take the criticism.” A lecturer at the Institute for sex education to be shocked by the city: “This can not possibly be true,” she says. Finally, advocates argue brochure, we have had an important goal, as the books were first published in 2001: The sexual development of infants and young children should no longer be taboo.
“A difficult, highly sensitive area”
Pott says the brochure should show where boundaries are, and make it clear that the contact with the children should in no way serve their own sexual arousal or gratification. Pot: “Early childhood sexual development is a difficult, highly sensitive area.” Therefore we have developed the brochure carefully and evaluated. So far there has been nothing but positive feedback, the Swiss Child Protection Association have even asked to take the advice.
“The brochures provide information on how parents can support their children in discovering one’s own body and in the experience of sexuality” was, at the time in a press release on the education booklets. An evaluation was the counselor found for good : The Institute for Market Research surveyed on behalf of BZgA shortly after the release of 60 mothers, 30 fathers and 15 teachers. The result of the parent interviews was “very positive, both in terms of the evaluation of the content and the design. (…) A spontaneous critique of the content has not been expressed.” 89 percent of parents had indicated that they had been made ​​aware of the boundaries and the privacy of the children. Even the teachers were – with one exception – spontaneously judged positively.
In Internet forums is discussed for some time about the study. Some see in the study, a taboo – others argue that the quotes were completely torn out of context. Meanwhile, both the volumes are out of print brochure. Throughout Germany, a total of 650,000 books were distributed, she went to kindergarten, family education centers, pediatricians – and there are probably still today. In addition, the counselors were countless times by the BZgA websites downloaded.Because of the criticism but was agreed with the Ministry of the Family, the PDFs of the two counselors not to spread.
The ad, which has long reimbursed Ulla and SPIEGEL ONLINE is not yet reached the BZgA. Currently, both Guides are revised. There will be a new edition, says Pott – maybe even this fall.
Editor’s note: The Cologne “Express” Irene Johns of Child Protection was quoted as saying “that pedophiles might use such official guidance as justification.” She is keen that she had not spoken of the brochure as an “official instructions”. SPIEGEL ONLINE has corrected the citation in the text.

J-m Arden

6 minutes ago

“It’s a perversion – and the guilty should be isolated from the rest of us.”
Quite so.
I’ve not read the article – which sounds grotesque – and am not reacting to it, simply to your blog post. And I guess I’m wondering what you mean by guilty.

From how you write it sounds as if you’re looking forward to the day when some kind of genetic screeing in utero can be done – and that potential paedophiles can be, well, eliminated in some way. Killing potential child abusers when they are children….

Or do you mean simply those who have acted out on their perverted attractions and are therefore guilty of a crime? Sure. How long do we isolate them for? Forever? If needs be, maybe. Curious that this never seems to have happened in the past or in other places. How come? Incest was very widespread, afterall. Call the Midwives about that, indeed.

But what of those who are attracted to children and don’t act on that attraction – are they also to be somehow found out (if they tell someone?) and then isolated? Are they still guilty? If so – of what? A perversion, sure, but how do you quantify that in a criminal way?

And lastly, and especially for you because you are a Catholic (as am I) If they tell a priest in the confessional that they have these perverted desires Tim, should the priest break the seal of the sacrament and denounce them so that they can be isolated? Or if they confess a crime – should the seal still be respected? And does the priest become complicit with that crime if he doesn’t denounce it? Where are you going with this, Tim? Do you even know yourself?

philogenes

43 minutes ago

I think the Guardian’s writers, and indeed its readership, have difficulty with the boundaries of the socially acceptable, having challenged them so successfully in the past. Whether it be children born out of wedlock, homosexuals, mixed race relationships: all once subject to social stigma until sympathetic liberals campaigned for their acceptance.

While sexuality is uniquely determined by a person’s heredity and life experience, and so is not something that the law and society should seek to effect, the protection of children is. Sympathy toward paedophiles should therefore be in inverse proportion to their satisfaction of it. And since this is exactly the Church’s teaching on homosexuality it is not surprising some Guardian writers get confused.

merryoldlandofoz

1 hour ago

@PaulinusMinimus:

The Guardian always censors comments which refer to Harriet Harmanns work with the Paedophile Information Exchange.

They really are a dangerous bunch of social engineering freaks.

GoodnightVienna

1 hour ago

I believe it was Tatchell (the left’s favourite turd burglar), who also wrote (in another Guardian article c1997):

“The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not
confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and
straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to
13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice
and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone
paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex
involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.”

He has also called for the lowering of the age of consent to fourteen and for a relaxation of pornography laws.

Nice!

therealguyfaux

2 hours ago

Of course, the Grauniad would like us not to condemn paedophiles out of hand, as they may have “something wrong with them” and they may be deserving of our understanding– it may not be their fault they feel as they do, it may be hard-wired into them, and all we can hope for is that they exercise a bit of restraint. The Guardianistas would laugh at that sort of sentiment (after probably an initial fulmination that someone would even seek to make the argument), if it were ever applied to gun owners in the US. But let us consider the preventative measures that can be taken to ensure that paedophiles, however small a number they may be, will be baulked in any of their efforts to commit those acts we find reprehensible; let us not have sports programmes or Scouts, the better to prevent children from coming into contact with adults at all. To prevent a few sickos, let us make sure no adults can come into contact with unrelated children outside of the school environment, and even there, let’s regulate it to Kingdom Come. It will prevent the sort of incidents we hear about Jimmy Savile et al., and it hopefully will satisfy the nonce-catchers like Lord Protector Tom Watson, who, last I checked, was being fitted for a long black coat, black knee-britches and a buckle hat, to look the part better. It just has to be that way, since we know we cannot trust those around children to be responsible in such activity, and it were far better it never take place than to risk more Jimmy Saviles running loose.

(Sadly enough, there might actually be a very few Lefties out there who do not realise I’m doing a Poe’s Law-style taking of the mickey, and might believe that a true word is being said in jest here, as this sorta chimes with their “let the state have control of our children” feelings– those who, while mouthing the appropriate “gotta show some love” shibboleths, still don’t believe in tempting fate.)

Jim Beam

2 hours ago

I m not remotely surprised. Once the leftists get gay marriage and conclude that campaign, paedophile rights is the obvious next bandwagon for them to jump on.

(Edited by author 2 hours ago)

Comment like count Recommended by 26 people
Recommend
Reply
Report

Commenter’s avatar

wltywb

46 minutes ago

“Once the leftists get gay marriage and conclude that campaign,
paedophile rights is the obvious next bandwagon for them to jump on.”

That’s true. Publicly condemn the marriage of a certain prophet to a child and the Left will have you locked up for it.

Comment like count Recommended by 1 person
Recommend
Reply
Report

Commenter’s avatar

TheJamesBond

2 hours ago

“I m not remotely surprised. Once the leftists get gay marriage and
conclude that campaign, paedophile rights is the obvious next bandwagon
for them to jump on. ”

I’d love to see a right winger on here call you out for this drivel but they won’t.

So I’ll do it.

Utter drivel.

Comment like count Recommended by 5 people
Recommend
Reply
Report

Commenter’s avatar

summermirr

2 hours ago

Is it James Bond? I rather think it is you who are being naive – it is well known that people like Patricia Hewitt, whilst at the National Council for Civil Liberties, thought that consensual child sexual activity was OK. Also, there is actual evidence of that attitude in the way lefty social workers have dealt with ‘child grooming’ by Asian gangs.

You don’t seriously thing that homosexual ‘marriage’ is about homosexuals getting married do you? That’s rather naive of you as well. Homosexual marriage is about destroying marriage for hetrosexuals, and in so doing destroying the family and promoting homosexuality as a liftstyle choic. Anyone who think otherwise are just ‘useful idiots’ .

The next step will probably be promoting beastality, and marriage to your horse, dog or hamster. The RSPCA will not mind, they are too busy with their expensive class war on hunting – in fact they will probably support such a move.

(Edited by author 2 hours ago)

Comment like count Recommended by 20 people
Recommend
Reply
Report

Commenter’s avatar

TheJamesBond

2 hours ago

“Homosexual marriage is about destroying marriage for hetrosexuals, and
in so doing destroying the family.

okie dokie.

I’ll just get loads of abuse from DT readers if I don’t agree with this.

Enjoy your recommends.

Comment like count Recommended by 2 people
Recommend
Reply
Report

Commenter’s avatar

summermirr

1 hour ago

Well, tell us why this will not be the case? Tell us how adultery and consummation are going to be redefined for homosexual marriage? And if they cannot be redefined then you cannot have such a concept for hetrosexuals – after all we are talking ‘equal’ marriage are we not?

Thus marriage, instead of being an institution on which to found a family and provide for the next generation, becomes nothing but a civil partnership based on the current, self absorbed, sexual preference for the parties involved. And in that case, you can start making the case for all sorts of other sexual ‘partnerships’.

Thus is marriage and the family destroyed as a build block of society – so a few gays can waltz down an aisle in white with a floral boquet and call themselves Mr and Mr Smith. I cannot see why civil partnerships cannot suffice for those who want to commit to someone of the same sex.

Homosexual and hetrosexual partnerships are not the same, they are not for the same purpose, and the whole concept of ‘equality’ is a red herring

Alcolhol ‘safe levels’ too high say bansturbators

“Government alcohol guidelines that were “plucked out of the air” wrongly suggest that we can drink almost daily with no ill-effects, doctors have said.

The limits have been set too high and fail to take into account new evidence showing that drinking only modest amounts (like a thimble full of beer once a month) raises the risk of cancer and other diseases.

The issue has been investigated as part of a three-part You & Yours documentary into Government guidelines on alcohol, diet and exercise, being aired over the next three days (starting January 2) on the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation’s propaganda station, Radio 4.

The current guidelines recommend men should limit themselves to “three to four units a day”, which NHS information likens to “not much more than a pint of strong lager, beer or cider”. (Funny but a pint used to be two units. Those units keep getting smaller – LNM).

Women should not regularly drink more than “two to three units a day”, equivalent to “no more than a standard 175ml glass of wine”.

New research published last year suggests consumption should be much lower – perhaps just a quarter of a pint of beer daily.”

Read full story.

Let’s carry this latest bansturbator Neo Nazi outrage to its logical conclusion.

Every human being breathes air. Every human being who ever breathed air, if not already dead, will die sometime in the future.

Remember, the arseholes scientists who come up with this repressive and authoritarian bullshit are paid out of your tax money.

Air kills. We must stop people from breathing it now.