Jul 27

BBC unwatchable on Gay Jubilee

Broadcasting House, headquarters of the BBC

Broadcasting House, headquarters of the BBC

Today is the fiftieth anniversary of the legalisation of sodomy. Consequently, the BBC will be unwatchable and unlistenable for a week at least.

Especially today, all BBC channels will be awash with ‘Gay Britania’.  It is exactly fifty years since the enactment of the Sexual Offences Act 1967.

BBC reflecting the Establishment

One can argue the BBC is simply reflecting the Establishment.  It is impossible to be a candidate for Labour, the LibDems or the Tories without being a ‘Diversity’ wonk.  Plaid Cymru, SNP and Sinn Fein are almost as bad.  And anyone Christian or just pro-family in government needs to keep his views to himself.

Moreover, in the broadcast media, Sky, ITV and Channel 4 news will no doubt be promoting what they will see as a joyous day.  It is always interesting to discern between what is news and what is the advancement of the Establishment agenda.  This author reckons BBC ‘news’ is usually 50% propaganda.

Nevertheless, TV viewers have a choice.  RT (Freeview 135) ought to be free of homosexual promotion while Yesterday (19) and TBN (65) should be gay-free zones.

Never satisfied

The homosexual mindset is never satisfied.  Neither with life as a whole, nor with sexual expression, nor indeed with political gains.  It was never enough just to be left alone to do whatever they were going to do in private.  As it happens, we all now know rather more than we ever wanted to about what homosexuals do in private.  That is largely owing to the AIDS crisis, forcing gay charities like Terrence Higgins Trust to list homosexual activities in order of health risk.

So in 2004 Tony Blair enacted Civil Partnerships.  The BBC celebrating that event with footage of happy couples.  Nevertheless, civil partnerships were not good enough.  Equally, gay politics had moved out of its Labour redoubt.  Therefore, a Conservative Party Prime Minister, David Cameron, inflicted same-sex ‘marriage’ on the nation in 2013.  More celebratory BBC footage, this time of gays getting gay-married.

And now the elite are moving on again.   They want to allow anyone, for any reason or none, to change his gender at will.  The Government have announced a new ‘Gender Recognition Bill’ for the autumn.  Our story on that is here.

Homosexuality … universally condemned

The Earl of Arran (by Alan Clifton, for Camera Press, circa 1967)

The Earl of Arran (by Alan Clifton, for Camera Press, circa 1967)

How did it come to this?  Was such a degradation of society in the minds of those who framed the Sexual Offences Act?  Not at all.  The 1967 Act was ‘permissive’ legislation.  That does not mean it was part of the ‘permissive society’, although of course it was.  It means it permitted something still illegal to happen in certain circumstances.  The Abortion Act of the same year is another example of ‘permissive’ legislation.

So the Sexual Offences Act allowed acts of sodomy and gross indecency to take place in England and Wales between two consenting adults (aged 21 or over) in private.  It was a Private Member’s Bill, brought in by Leo Abse MP, at the instigation of Antony Grey of the Albany Trust and the Homosexual Law Reform Society.

In the debates on the 1967 Sexual Offences Bill, MPs and Peers made clear Parliament was refusing to do anything more than permit homosexual acts in certain circumstances. This was emphasised again and again by, for example, Lord Arran, who said:

‘In all the discussions we have had, and in all the speeches, no single noble Lord or noble Lady has ever said that homosexuality is right or a good thing. It has been universally condemned from start to finish, and by every single member of the House.’

First Gay Pride March in 1972

Strangely enough, under a Christian legal system, there would be no need for the Sexual Offences Act.  The Bible requires at least two witnesses before a court can convict anyone of a crime:

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

If two men were doing something indecent in private there would be no witnesses.  Accordingly, there could be no prosecution.

Peter Tatchell, seen here in the 2003 London 'gay pride' parade demonstrating against Robert Mugabe, took part in the first homosexual protest march in 1972.

Peter Tatchell, seen here in the 2003 London ‘gay pride’ parade demonstrating against Robert Mugabe, took part in the first homosexual protest march in 1972.

But the sentiments of their Lordships, no doubt well-intended, were to fall on deaf ears.  Homosexuality would not now stay private.  Activists held the first ever gay pride march in London five years later in 1972.  Veteran campaigner Peter Tatchell was on it.  He gives a valuable Gay Liberation Front insider’s view here.

Eschew ostentatious behaviour and flaunting

In a later House of Lords debate, one Lord Henderson slightly misquoted the Earl of Arran.  In 1967, said Henderson, Lord Arran ‘asked the homosexual people of the future to comport themselves quietly and with dignity and to eschew any form of ostentatious behaviour or public flouting.’  Lord Arran actually used the word ‘flaunting.’  He said any evidence of it would ‘make the sponsors of this Bill regret that they have done what they have done.’

One homosexual activist, John Marshall, summed up the arguments of the Bill’s supporters like this:

‘The protection afforded by the Sexual Offences Bill, particularly for young people, was stressed repeatedly;  homosexuality was a lesser evil than the blackmail which its prohibition encouraged; relaxing the law would make it easier for homosexuals who wished to be free of their practices to seek help from the caring ministries.’

The Sexual Offences Act 1967 was extended to Scotland in 1980 and to Northern Ireland in 1982.  The latter happened after a European Court ruling and despite a campaign led by the late Dr Ian Paisley MP to ‘Save Ulster from Sodomy.’

Homosexual lobby group founded

Prime Minister John Major MP decriminalised buggery on women.

Prime Minister John Major MP decriminalised buggery on women.

Even twenty-one years after the Sexual Offences Act, in 1988, homosexual activity was still viewed with distaste. That was the year of Section 28, which banned promotion of homosexuality in the classroom.

Section 28 and its description of homosexual couples as being in a ‘pretended family’ energised gay activists.  They founded the Stonewall lobby group in 1989.

Five years later, under John Major, Parliament lowered  the minimum age in the Sexual Offences Act to eighteen.  The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 also permitted buggery on women.

The Christian Voice group was founded in the same year to inform Christians so they could pray into such matters and take action.  But a tidal wave was approaching.

In 1998 activist MPs voted to lower the homosexual age again, this time to sixteen.  The House of Lords objected.  Undaunted, Prime Minister Tony Blair used the Parliament Act.  Accordingly, in 2000 homosexual men gained legal access to sixteen-year-old boys.  In 2003, his administration repealed Section 28.  The Scottish Parliament repealed its equivalent in 2000.

In 2003, Parliament allowed homosexuals to adopt children.  The following year saw civil partnerships.  Also in 2004 Parliament legislated a lie.  They passed the Gender Recognition Act.  That allowed someone to go back and falsify his birth certificate if a doctor agreed he was a woman – or if a woman thought she was really a man.

Like a flood

Tony Blair used the Parliament Act to force the House of Lords to lower the minimum age for sodomy to sixteen. He also introduced civil partnerships. That would never be enough.

Tony Blair used the Parliament Act to force the House of Lords to lower the minimum age for sodomy to sixteen. He also introduced civil partnerships. That would never be enough.

Gay-promoting legislation was now coming in like a flood.  In 2007 we had the Sexual Orientation Regulations, forcing Christian B&B owners to offer beds to homosexual couples.  In 2008 Parliament abolished the offence of blasphemy and passed their own blasphemy law, a ‘gay hate speech’ law.

2009 saw the Equality Act placing a duty on public authorities to promote sodomy and transgenderism.  And then David Cameron forced through the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013.

It is difficult to promote homosexuality politically any more.  The activists have achieved virtually everything.  Accordingly, the BBC is simply leading today’s celebrations.  Of course, reparative therapy offering people a progression out of same-sex attraction is still a target, because the idea there could be something wrong with being homosexual is anathema to the ungodly.  Additionally, it is true there are still grumblings in society.  For example, many parents still do not want teachers promoting homosexuality to their children.  And the Independent says today that 42% of people in Britain still think homosexual activity is unnatural.  Curiously, 59% of Brexit voters said gay sex was unnatural, compared to a quarter of Remain voters.  (And if you want to know which countries in the world say sodomy is unacceptable, click here!)

But one UK institution in particular remains a thorn in the activists’ collective side.  The stronger elements of Christianity are still holding out.  Homosexuals demand full acceptance from the church.  Tolerance is not enough.  So our openly-lesbian Education Secretary has demanded churches offer ceremonies for people getting gay-married.  According to the Daily Mirror, Justine Greening said: ‘I think it is important that the church in a way keeps up.’

Lift up a standard

The Bible shows God Almighty does not ‘keep up’ with wickedness.  In contrast, the Prophet of God says:

Isaiah 59:19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.

And on this day of shame, this satanic jubilee, good Lord, that is what your Church is praying for.  For men of God to be filled with the Holy Spirit, to lift up the Lord’s standard and press the Crown Rights of King Jesus!

Click on the  buttons below to share this article as widely as possible:


Jul 26

‘Choose your gender’ says UK Government

Rt Hon Justine Greening, MP for Putney, has proposed a 'choose your gender bill'.

Rt Hon Justine Greening, MP for Putney, has proposed a ‘choose your gender bill’.

People will be allowed to choose their gender if the UK Government gets its way.

Change gender ‘at will’

The Independent reports:  ‘Under plans being considered by ministers, adults will be able to change their birth certificates at will without a doctor’s diagnosis, while non-binary gender people will be able to record their gender as “X”.’

The paper says: ‘Changes to the law will be consulted on and will ultimately be included in a planned Gender Recognition Bill, set to be published in the autumn.’

In stark contrast, just before we went to press, President Trump announced a ban on transgender personnel in the US military, citing ‘the need to focus on victory’, the Washington Post reported.

And then, according to RT, in true ‘couldn’t make it up mode’, Rear Admiral Alex Burton, commander UK Maritime Forces, tweeted:  ‘As a Royal Navy LGBT champion and senior warfighter I am so glad we are not going this way.’  As one of those you would be glad, Admiral.  But as a husband and father you should know better.


‘This is a choice’

Education and Equalities Secretary Justine Greening announced the move as MPs set off for their summer recess last Friday.  Just days before, Jeremy Corbyn urged the Conservatives to allow people to ‘self-identify’.  The fiftieth anniversary of legalising sodomy also appears to have influenced the timing.  The Queen gave her Royal Assent to the Sexual Offences Act on 27th July 1967.

The Labour manifesto included plans for self-identification.  The Conservatives’ did not.  Nor did June’s Queen’s Speech include a Gender Recognition Bill.  It is safe to say that had the Tories included such a divisive measure they would have lost the election.

According to RT, Miss Greening ‘told Sky News on Sunday the state needs to “stop treating people changing their gender as if it’s some medical problem that needs fixing. Actually this is a choice that people are making and we need to try and make that choice more straightforward than it already is.”’

Suzanna Hopwood, a member of the sodomy advocacy group Stonewall’s Trans Advisory Group, agrees.  ‘It is vital” the reform removes the requirement for medical evidence and an intrusive interview panel,’ she said.  Miss Hopwood went on to describe the current system as ‘demeaning and broken.’  (‘Broken’ is a fashionable word with which to criticise Government policy or a state department’s handling of something.)

‘Still a long way to go’

A follow-up article in the Indy shows Prime Minister Theresa May as wholly supportive.  She said “when it comes to rights and protections for trans people, there is still a long way to go”.  Her predecessor, David Cameron, rode ‘gay marriage’ roughshod over his party’s opposition.  He even boasted about it in his resignation speech

Mary Douglas speaking about the choose gender farce on BBC

Mary Douglas speaking about the choose gender farce on BBC

But Tory activist Mary Douglas of Grassroots Conservatives strongly disagreed.  Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme, she said she was ‘very concerned’ about the move.  ‘In my view it should not be easy to do something as massive change your gender,’ she said.  ‘And the law is there to protect us, normally from other people, but also sometimes from ourselves. I think many people have profound concerns about this.’

She went on:  ‘It is profoundly unconservative.  Conservative with a big C and small C implies continuity with what has gone before.’  She was asked if Miss Greenings’ own self-declared homosexuality had anything to do with the announcement.  Mrs Douglas replied: ‘It’s a possibility.’  She continued: ‘But I’m not going to suggest anything I don’t know. I don’t know Justine personally at all but the bigger issue here is not who is … considering introducing this policy, but the implications of the policy itself.’

‘They are deeply troubled’

The liberal Huffington Post reports activists were up in arms about further comments from Mrs Douglas.  They took particular exception to her suggestion that those with gender dysphoria have mental or emotional problems.

Mrs Douglas asked: ‘If somebody thinks they have a mismatch between how they think and the way their body is, the question is: which should be changed?’

Answering her own question, she said: ‘What’s interesting is that many people who have gender dysphoria also have other mental health conditions like depression or drug addiction. They are deeply troubled and it has been proven that when they change their gender, that doesn’t solve those issues.’

Activists called her ‘rude’, ‘bigoted’, insensitive’, ‘old-fashioned’ and even ‘disgraceful.’  Crucially, no-one appears to have put together a coherent response to show she was wrong.

The practicalities

We need to be very clear about why Christians need to oppose this measure.  Just at a practical level, it means that anyone can just decide to be the opposite gender to the one they were born with.  They will need no evidence.  Just their word will do.  In no other area would we accept someone’s word against scientific evidence.  The evidence here is that of simple genetics.

The proposal is a voyeurs’ charter, allowing men to visit ladies’ toilets and dressing rooms.  They will also absurdly be able to compete in athletics events this time against proper women.  We could be seeing the beginning of the end of women’s sport.  Sadly, in today’s post-truth world, being ridiculous will not stop this preposterous measure being enacted.

Additionally, the move will give a further push to the already-rolling transgender bandwagon.  More children will start deciding they are ‘in the wrong body’.  Shockingly, teachers and social workers have been encouraging such children.  Doctors too are prescribing powerful hormones to adolescent children to delay or block the onset of puberty.  Medicine is intended to cure.  Puberty blockers harm.  Sadly, medicine is not free of charlatans.  Surgeons too are ready to mutilate people’s God-given bodies into what they think they should be.  Some, as Mrs Douglas implied, will regret it.

Adults are meant to safeguard children from bad decisions.  But instead, authority figures are taking vicarious delight in these wrong-headed childish decisions.   They are perpetrating child abuse.  Some school or local authority, in a few years’ time, is going to be sued.

Rebellion against God’s creation

Moreover, at a theological level, we need to recognise that transgenderism is far worse than sodomy, even than ‘gay marriage’. Homosexuality rebels against God’s institution of the family.

The Bible records this moment in Genesis chapter 2:

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

However, transsexuals and transgender apologists are in rebellion against creation itself. If we go back a chapter in Genesis, we find the chromosonal reality of the division of the sexes as an expression of God’s very image:

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

God decides your gender, not you. Our generation wants to spit in the face of God.  The church has to stand firm and proclaim the whole Gospel.

The economic and security dimension

This brings us to the economic and security dimension. When the UK voted to leave the European Union, all sides agreed our Parliament could now pass our own laws. The EU would not allow the UK that freedom. We expressed a hope that the UK would now repent and start to enact godly laws.

Allowing self-determined gender choice was not and never will be in a list of godly laws.

Accordingly, by enacting a measure in sheer defiance of God’s righteousness, our legislators are bringing even more of God’s judgment on us.

Furthermore, with Brexit negotiations going on and Islamic extremists stalking the streets, we need all the economic and security blessings – and all the wisdom – the Almighty can bestow.

Make no mistake, if our nation is doing well, we shall all be doing well. Moreover, Christian people want the best for those sad individuals caught up in gender dysphoria, for the nation’s children and for the country of which we are a temporal part. God’s words to the captives in Babylon still ring true:

Jeremiah 29:7 And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.


This author is happy to visit any gathering to speak on these issues. Ring 01994 484544 to arrange a date.

Click on the links below to share this story:


Jul 24

Boots in Morning-After Pill row

Boots the Chemist - caved in to pressure.

Boots the Chemist – caved in to pressure.

Boots has come under attack from a leading abortionist angry at the Chemist’s pricing for the morning-after pill.

According to the BBC, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) issued a press release on Friday 21st July 2017.  BPAS demanded Boots and other pharmacies reduce the cost of what it euphemistically called ’emergency contraception’ Levonelle.  ‘Levonelle’ is a brand name for levonorgetsrel.  Bayer PLC market the drug in the UK.

‘Incentivising inappropriate use’

Currently, the progestogen-based drug Levonelle costs £28.25 in Boots.  The store sells a non-branded equivalent for £26.75.  However, Tesco have the branded drug at £13.50.  Meanwhile, Superdrug offer a generic version for 13.49.  Additionally, Superdrug charges £27 for Levonelle and £35 for something called EllaOne (qv).

Clare Murphy, BPAS director of external affairs, said: ‘Most people believe women should be able to access emergency contraception from pharmacies at an affordable price.’  We do not know what evidence she has for that statement.

The chief pharmacist at Boots UK, Marc Donovan, said: ‘In our experience, the subject polarises public opinion and we receive frequent contact from individuals who voice their disapproval of the fact that [Boots] chooses to provide this service.

‘We would not want to be accused of incentivising inappropriate use, and provoking complaints, by significantly reducing the price of this product.’

He added that the chemist wanted to avoid the pill ‘being misused or overused’.

‘Patronising and pathetic’

Labour MP Yvette Cooper chimed in on Twitter.  ‘This is patronising and pathetic – keeping emergency contraception price too high cos you don’t trust women and are scared of critics.’

Yvette Cooper MP

Yvette Cooper MP

The morning after pill is a powerful abortifacient.  Bayer say they think it stops ovaries releasing eggs. It might also prevent fertilisation by sperm.  But the Mayo Clinic say some morning-after pills also prevent an embryonic human being implanting in the womb. While the BBC say the pill ‘can be taken in the days after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy’, Bayer make clear Levonelle must be taken within twelve hours.  The Mayo Clinic add ‘recent evidence strongly suggests that levonorgestrel doesn’t keep a fertilized egg from implanting’.  They add: ‘ It’s not clear if the same is true for Ella.’

We have been wondering why the UK’s biggest abortionist is cheer-leading for Bayer’s Levonelle.  After all, would not an over-the-counter potion reduce their own market?  But it seems Levonelle has only a small window of use.  Moreover, it does not always work.  A woman can take it according to instructions.  She can then discover she is pregnant despite that.  Additionally, her mind has fully taken against pregnancy.  Therefore Levonelle use may actually increase BPAS core business of surgically ripping babies to pieces.  the same may be true of other ’emergency contraceptives’.  Abortionists have said in the past that contraceptive use in general increases demand for abortions.

Around the United Kingdom

BPAS; always chasing new market opportunities. 'Caring for women since 1968?' Doing abortions, that means.

BPAS; always chasing new market opportunities. ‘Caring for women since 1968?’ Doing abortions, that means.

In England, Levonelle and EllaOne are free of charge from most sexual health clinics.  Moreover, many GP surgeries and most NHS walk-in centres give them out free. The BBC added ‘The drugs are free only to women in certain age groups from pharmacies in some parts of the country.’  Note ‘certain age groups’.  What they meant is some pharmacies and school nurses give it out free to teenagers behind their parents’ backs.

In 2002, supermarkets Sainsbury’s and Tesco gave out the hormonal drug free to teens.  The move was part of a Government scheme.  Christian Voice led a campaign with SPUC which put the brakes on Sainsbury’s involvement.  Tesco proved more obdurate.

In Scotland and Wales, the pill is available free of charge on the NHS from pharmacies, GPs and sexual health clinics.  In Northern Ireland, some pharmacies allow it to be bought on the NHS,  Sexual health clinics and GPs in the Province make it available free of charge.

Laura Perrins

Laura Perrins

Boots caves in to pressure

By Monday morning, Boots had caved in.  The firm was ‘truly sorry’ for its response and its ‘poor choice of words’.  It would look for cheaper alternatives to Levonelle, perhaps not quite what BPAS had in mind.

Now, the BBC reported Laura Perrins from the blog Conservative Women.  Mrs Perrins said condemning a pharmacy for setting a price on a particular drug was itself a ‘form of moralising’.

She said Boots should not be forced to reduce the cost, saying Levonelle ‘is a drug that is unlike others and is a drug that can be given to under-age girls without parental consent’.

But Sandra Gidley, from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, said the original stance taken by Boots was a ‘little uncomfortable’.

She said: ‘They seemed to be saying women would be irresponsible.’  ‘That can’t be the case because pharmacists have to ask a set number of questions.  So if women are regularly trying to use the morning after pill as a method of contraception they’re simply not allowed to have it.’

Magaluf Mentality

Majorca's Magaluf has become a byword for debauchery.

Majorca’s Magaluf has become a byword for debauchery.

Speaking on LBC, this author said a couple should not be engaging in conjugal relations if they were not open to the possibility of conception.

Furthermore, we take a medicine because there is something wrong with us.  We have a ‘dis-ease’.  So what ails a woman taking the morning-after-pill?  Has fertility – or new life – now become an ailment?  Levonelle and its competitors are not medicines, they are poisons.

Moreover, the availability of such potions helps bring about a ‘Magaluf Mentality’, after the depraved antics at the Spanish island resort.  Intiimacy becomes recreational.

Thanks to our divorce culture, we now have a crisis of young people deprived of (mainly) a father’s love.  They are desperately seeking someone to love them.  When this affects girls, they are prey to any young man who takes an interest in them.  The absence of fathers in a boy’s life decreases morality and accountability.  Add in Levonelle and the rest of the morning-after-pill drawer and you have a perfect storm for debauchery.

And a nice source of turnover for the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.

Click on the buttons below to share this in-depth report:


Jul 19

Medway dispute Mother guilty of ‘contempt’

Maidstone County Court heard Medway's case against the mother

Maidstone County Court heard Medway’s case against the mother

A mother in dispute with social services was found guilty yesterday of contempt of court.  The case has not yet concluded so we shall refer to her as ‘SR’.

Sitting at Maidstone County Court, in open court, Judge Richard Polden held ‘SR’ had  breached an injunction forbidding her from naming her children and reporting on her case online.

Furthermore, she gave an undertaking last December to take down the articles and then changed her mind, he said.  The articles remained up on her page on social media.

Sledgehammer to crack a nut

Sentence will be passed on 30th August, said His Honour.  In accordance with the rules, he must name the mother in public at the conclusion of the case.  Barrister Edward Elliott, representing Medway Council, objected to naming the mother even at that stage.  He said that would enable the public to join up her case and the details already legally presented about it on this website with her social media page.

But this author, speaking as a journalist and member of the media, invited His Honour to have no sympathy with that argument.  Ours is not a jurisdiction which ‘disappears’ dissidents.  The rules say clearly that a person committed to prison, even if sentence is suspended, must be named.  The Council should have thought of that before employing a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Medway ‘verging on vindictive’

The two ‘children’ Medway took are now nineteen and eighteen.  Any orders passed under the Children Act no longer apply.  Medway complained about breaches occurring while at least one of the children was still under eighteen.   But they do not wish the mother to post anything even now about her treatment by Medway Council.  Furthermore, that treatment, on the face of it, appears to have verged on vindictive, as our earlier story detailed.   Accordingly, to try to stem the flow of embarrassing negative information about Medway Social Services, they wanted the judge to make a ‘non-molestation order’ in favour of the children.

But Judge Polden was not confident Medway could present such an application on behalf of persons who are now legally adults.  The Council even expected him to take merely the evidence of social worker Kelly Hopper in support of it.  But when Kelly Hopper gave evidence against the mother for contempt of court, she had to admit she was not even in contact with the son or daughter.  She only had a chat with their ‘support worker’.  So when she laid it on about the children being distressed about their mother’s actions, that was mere hearsay.  Miss Hopper had her speech off pat.  She did not even read from notes she might have taken when purportedly speaking to the support worker.  Her evidence came across as frankly contrived.  So His Honour sent that application up to a High Court Judge to decide in September.

The American civil rights agitator, Saul Alinsky, championed the idea of 'using the system against itself'.

The American civil rights agitator, Saul Alinsky, championed the idea of ‘using the system against itself’.

Using the system against itself

The case exposes the problems faced by local authorities who want to shut parents up.  There is a growing number of parents aggrieved by the loss of their children and the injustice they say they have faced in the family courts.  They are beginning to gather together in social media groups.  And they feel they have very little to lose.  SR herself told the judge: ‘I’ve lost everything.  Medway have destroyed my life and my family.  Send me to prison if you want.’

The truth is, the establishment can only go down its given routes.  Suppose a parent (or even this ministry) shares information contrary to Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, which forbids publication of ‘information relating to proceedings … under the Children Act 1989’.  Or a parent (not this ministry) names their child on social media contrary to Section 97 of the Children Act 1989.

All the annoyed local authority can do is apply for the parent (or journalist) to be sent to prison.  They only have that blunt instrument of a weapon.  But employing it creates more publicity around the initial injustice.

Additionally, the parent must now be named in public.  When a respondent shows no fear of consequences and desires the publicity, such sanctions play into their hands.  They are, in the classic expression, ‘using the system against itself.’

A previous Mayor of Medway writes

After emailing our previous story on this case to Councillors in Medway, one Councillor Stuart Tranter responded.  Cllr Tranter was Mayor until Cllr Wildey took over this year.  What he wrote perfectly illustrates the complacency of those in charge of Medway Council:

‘I always welcome the truth, and if you believe something is wrong I suggest you use the courts and other proper means to have the evidence examined.’

Former Mayor of Medway, Councillor Stuart Tranter

Former Mayor of Medway, Councillor Stuart Tranter

No, Councillor Tranter, we are the media.  We are part of the Fourth Estate, holding those in power to account.  Those in power include local authorities, social workers, advocates, judges and indeed councillors.  We are not going to court, and what ‘other proper means’ are there?  Media is a ‘proper means’ and the only court we shall use is the court of public opinion.

He goes on:  ‘Cllr Alan Jarratt (current leader) and Cllr David Wildey are good people working hard for our community, yet you imply they are running a council which sets out to harm innocent people. But living in Wales, I doubt you know them or how this council really works. We may be imperfect, but we do our best to get things right with the resources we have.’

Indeed, us humble sheep-rearing folk know nothing of the high-minded ways of the Home Counties.  But we can spot an injustice when we see one.  Furthermore, a local authority and its councillors should display more humility than ‘we may be imperfect’ and acknowledge their mistakes.

He that troubleth Israel!

Cllr Tranter continues:  ‘I found all I read about you and your organisation and your beliefs negative and disturbing, so I must assume you thrive on causing disturbance which reinforces your beliefs and gives you energy. I hope that one day you get the help you need to find peace.’

Wow!  When you lose the argument, try the ad hominem attack.  Now who was it who said, ‘You are stirring up trouble!’  The idolatrous king Ahab said it to the Prophet Elijah.  Here is the full discourse:

1Kings 18:17 And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? 18 And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and thou hast followed Baalim.

‘Baalim’ were false gods.  Israel had departed from the laws of the Lord, just like Medway Council in stripping children from their parents because a house is untidy.  Thanks for that, Councillor.  And you will only find peace in the Lord Jesus, who told his followers:

John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Just click on the buttons below to share this story in your social media network:


Jul 13

Medway Council took children because home ‘untidy’

Councillor Alan Jarrett, leader of Medway Council

Councillor Alan Jarrett, leader of Medway Council

A local authority took two children into care because a house was ‘untidy’, a mother has told Christian Voice.

And now, seven years later, Medway Council are trying to send the mother to prison for speaking out about her case.  This is despite both children now being over eighteen.  Care proceedings end at eighteen.

Medway Council harmed boy with violent video games

Medway Council have a history of such intimidatory tactics against parents who refuse to play by the rules.  Last month they brought contempt of court proceedings against a father for naming council employees on social media.  Judge Richard Scarratt gave him 56 days suspended.

In January this year Medway Council also applied to send Eugene Lukjanenko to prison for naming his son.  Judge Richard gave him his first 56 days, also suspended.  Mr Lukjanenko says he was speaking out against the injustice he says both he and his son have suffered at the hands of Medway Council.

According to friends of the family, Mr Lukjanenko’s son suffered horrific emotional abuse at the hands of Medway Council after being taken into care following a one-off altercation with a neighbour’s child.

Medway Council allowed 'J' to watch video games which inspired Norwegian neo-Nazi Anders Breivik

Medway Council allowed ‘J’ to watch video games which inspired Norwegian neo-Nazi Anders Breivik

If there was ever a case for a local authority working with a parent to keep a family together, this was it.  But instead, Medway Council took J into care at huge cost to the taxpayer.

Whether that is down to resources or ideology we do not know.

Moreover, they encouraged him to watch violent video games, including one played by Norwegian neo-nazi Anders Breivik.

We cannot name Mr Lukjanenko’s son without being in contempt of court ourselves.  As he is a minor, we do not wish to anyway.

We are only able to name Mr Lukjanenko because Medway brought committal proceedings against him.

‘Hired gun’ psychologist says home-schooling causes ‘harm’

Edward Elliott has represented Medway Council in at least two contempt of court cases against aggrieved parents.

Edward Elliott has represented Medway Council in at least two contempt of court cases against aggrieved parents.

In the present case, that of the mother, we are at liberty to name all parties, but will wait until next week’s court case before doing so.  In the meantime, Medway’s barrister, Edward Elliott, boasts about his involvement in the Council’s committal proceedings against the mother.  He calls her ‘SR’ which is how we shall refer to her.

Nevertheless, some disturbing factors of SR’s case should concern all of us.  Medway’s case at the final hearing on 4th March 2010 was that SR had harmed her two youngest children by pulling them out of school.  Her daughter ‘C’ has special needs, while her son ‘D’ is above average intelligence.

Medway Council hired chartered psychologist Mr Graham Flatman to dig up dirt on the family.  His comments should alarm every home-schooling parent in the land.  He contended SR ‘had provided (‘D’) only with a limited and possibly distorted social experience’ and had ‘missed the opportunities offered by school for extended social contacts, extra curricular activities and the benefit of experiencing how a society of children and adults can function’.  He concluded, ‘He had therefore suffered harm.’ On this point, District Judge Graham Green found otherwise.

It is legal to home-school in the United Kingdom.

Uncooperative with professionals

Expert Witness Graham Flatman. His reports cost the taxpayer around £6,000 each and he can write six per month, so he has every reason to look cheerful.

Expert Witness Graham Flatman. His reports cost the taxpayer around £6,000 each and he can write six per month, so he has every reason to look cheerful.

Having failed on home schooling, Medway turned on SR herself.  Mr Flatman said she was ‘narcissistic’.  She had ‘no insight into the harm and neglect the children have suffered’.  He said she ‘should not have the responsibility of caring for her children unless she progresses through treatment and support’.  What ‘treatment’?  He did not say.  Could it involve keeping SR away from looking glasses and pools of water?  Whatever treatment it might be, Mr Flatman will not be providing it.  He is far too busy writing reports for the family court.

Mr Flatman also said SR, a single parent, was uncooperative with the professionals.  These are people who wanted to remove her children from the family home.  Many reasonable people might also be assessed as having ‘distorted and paranoid belief systems about authority figures’ in such circumstances.

Indeed, it seems Medway Council were intent on forcing SR’s children back into school.  The mother has a suspicion that Council employees were disgruntled she had chosen to home-school her two youngest children.  In her view, care proceedings were a retaliation.  Indeed, Medway applied to the family court for an Emergency Protection Order in February 2010.  Moreover, the Council did this in secret without SR’s knowledge.  Social worker Janet Western-Mullins then ambushed her with the order and a riot van full of police officers at her home.

Social worker ‘had no evidence’

Mark Noble was a detective police inspector before going private as a safeguarding manager. He said the case against SR was 'laughable'.

Mark Noble was a detective police inspector before going private as a safeguarding manager. He said the case against SR was ‘laughable’.

Miss Western-Mullins told the court in her statement there was a ‘long history of reported squalid conditions’ at SR’s home.  But she then had to admit these were based on one referral from a workman and a report from Medway Housing association in Feb 2008.  She had actually ‘gone no further than the front room of SRt’s home’.  She apologised for the exaggeration and ‘agreed that she had no evidence to support that assumption’.

But a police officer, Detective Constable Alexandra Smith, gave unchallenged subjective evidence supporting Medway.  She said the garden ‘was a mess’, and there was ‘a litter tray smelling strongly of urine in the hallway.’

Astonishingly, and on this scant evidence, and despite SR having raised her three other children without incident, Judge Green found that the conditions of the home were ‘significant’ and ‘harmful to the children’.  He made a final care order.

SR tells us that one Mark Noble, then a detective inspector in Kent Police, expressed what we shall politely call ‘reservations’ about Alex Smith’s evidence.  He reportedly said the case was ‘laughable’.  Mr Noble now offers his services on LinkedIn as a ‘safeguarding manager’,

We shall look back at this with shame

Councillor David Wildey is Mayor of Medway Council.

Councillor David Wildey is Mayor of Medway Council.

This is just the latest example of a council’s social services department putting more effort into securing a care order than helping a family stay together.  Again a Council uses a ‘hired gun’ psychologist to damn the parent.  We see a care order based on the most nebulous crossing of the Children Act ‘threshold’.  And yet again we have Medway Council trying to send a parent to prison for exposing what she sees as the injustice she and her family have suffered.

Indeed, in case after case, parents tell this writer stories which speak of institutional, systemic injustice.  In years to come, British people will look back at what the family courts did with shame.  A senior judge will write a report about the parents who were deprived of their children without committing a crime.  Politicians will make speeches of apology to the children condemned to local authority care and its poor outcomes.

Venue and Scripture

Medway Council will try to send SR to prison at Maidstone County Court .  The address is Barker Road, ME16 8EQ.  Judge Richard Polden will hear the case on Monday 17th July 2017 at 10.00am in open court .  The rules say the hearing must be heard in public unless there are ‘exceptional circumstances’.

An embarrassed Medway Council will want to maintain secrecy.  Accordingly, we shall expect an application from them to hear the case in private.  And we shall expect Judge Polden to dismiss it.

Scripture says: Exodus 23:6 Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause.  And:

Ezekiel 45:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel: remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice, take away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord GOD.

We were asking Medway Councillors for comments on this story as we went to press.

Click on the links below to share this shocking story:


Jul 11

Charlie Gard: Why can’t his parents decide?

Charlie Gard in Great Ormond Street Hospital

Charlie Gard in Great Ormond Street Hospital

Stop Press (24/07/2017)

Charlie’s parents have ended their fight after a US doctor said it was now too late to treat their baby.  What would have happened had Great Ormond Street Hospital simply allowed them to take him to the US in March, we shall never know.

(And do read Canon Giles Fraser on this matter in the Guardian.)

Original article:

Many of us are now asking one question above all in the case of Charlie Gard.  Why does the judge not simply allow his parents to do what they think is best for their baby?

What is wrong with Charlie Gard?

Charlie Gard has a very rare mitochondrial disease, says an explanation in the Guardian.  His mitochondria are failing to supply energy to the cells in his body. This mitochondrial failure is leading to damage to his body’s organs.

Charlie is in intensive care at Great Ormond Street hospital in London.  Life support machines are keeping him alive because he cannot breathe by himself. The doctors say he has severe brain damage, and his heart, liver and kidneys are also affected.

However, Charlie’s mother, Connie Yates, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Monday that her son is responsive, enjoying tickles and watching videos with his parents. She also said that she had yet to see proof that her son had irreversible brain damage.

But the doctors say Charlie Gard ‘should be allowed to die with dignity’.  That just means die, in plain language.  Mr Justice Francis, sitting in the High Court, agreed death would be in Charlie’s ‘best interests’.  How is that?

American hospital would treat Charlie

Charlie Gard with his parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard

Charlie Gard with his parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard

Moreover, Charlie Gard’s parents, Chris Gard and Miss Yates, have raised over a million pounds to take Charlie to a hospital in the United States.  Doctors there are offering nucleoside therapy, an experimental drug treatment.  It might not even work.  It probably could not reverse what has already been damaged.

Nevertheless, according to the BBC, the family’s lawyers say ‘cutting edge genetic science’ gives a ‘small chance’ of brain recovery.  It is a chance ‘worth taking’. The Bible agrees with that positive view:

Ecclesiastes 9:4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.

The parents have taken the case to the Court of Appeal.  They even went to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.  But all agreed that to prolong Charlie’s life would risk causing him further suffering.  The European Court gave permission for the hospital to switch off Charlie Gard’s life support systems. They said further treatment would not help him.

Pope and President Trump intervene

But then Pope Francis offered the services of the Bambino Gesù paediatric hospital’s neurosciences department in the Vatican.  President Trump also expressed his support for the parents.

In addition, commentators in the United States are amazed at our legal process and decisions.  News Channel 3 reports a CNN wire on the story with astonishment:  ‘Courts will not allow the hospital to release the baby, Charlie Gard, into the parents’ custody so they can travel to try an experimental treatment.’

Support for Charlie Gard has gone global.

Support for Charlie Gard has gone global.

The difference is that in the US, law begins with parental rights.  Here parents’ rights come second to the enforcement of parental responsibility to raise their children as the state sees best.  This is coupled with the nebulous ‘best interests of the child’.

Consequently, Great Ormond Street and Justice Francis have taken to themselves the parental rights of Mr Gard and Miss Yates.  Such a statist, secularist position simply cannot be right.

The Bible says: Psalm 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.  It does not say those children are a heritage of the State.  Parental responsibility is grounded in parental rights.

People worldwide have given Charlie Gard’s parents huge financial and moral support.  Plainly the Biblical position strikes a chord in the public mind.  The parents have the money.  They are not asking the NHS to pay for anything.  Why can’t they go?

The case goes back to the High Court on Thursday.  Let us pray for a righteous outcome.  If not, the law must change.


Jul 10

They’re all backing London Gay Pride

Topshop being more progressive than thou at London Gay Pride this weekend.

Topshop being more progressive than thou at London Gay Pride this weekend.

Businesses and politicians fell over each other to support the London Gay Pride parade at the weekend.

The BBC reported: ‘With almost 50 official partners, ranging from airlines to mobile networks, and a list of over 60 supporters, companies are signing up to try to stamp out prejudice.’

Well, no, they are not trying to ‘stamp out prejudice’, BBC, they are simply trying to sell product.  To do that, a bit of good old ‘virtue signalling’ will do the trick.

The inverted commas indicate that we have come to a strange place when supporting a group defined by vice is ‘virtue signalling’ in the first place.  But clothing retailers such as Topshop are definitely adopting a ‘more progressive than thou’ stance.

London Gay Pride sponsored by Barclays and the Mayor

London Underground getting in on the act at Oxford Circus.

London Underground getting in on the act at Oxford Circus.

Costa coffee also went rainbow coloured.  In addition to the opportunists on the street, the ‘Pride in London’ website indeed lists around fifty corporate sponsors of one kind and another.

London Underground is a sponsor, putting the six-coloured rainbow up at Oxford Circus with a slogan:  ‘#LoveisLove’.  Or five minutes in the bushes on Hampstead Heath.

Barclays Bank was joint ‘headline’ sponsor with the Mayor of London.

That’s devout Muslim Mr Khan.  There is obviously a time and a place for Islam in a politician’s life.

Gold sponsors include Starbucks and Tesco.  Tesco seem not to have learnt the lesson of their disastrous financial calamities following their £30,000 sponsorship of the 2012 Gay Pride.

Rainbow-coloured Houses of Parliament - sort of.

Rainbow-coloured Houses of Parliament – sort of.

Gay flag flying over Downing Street

Politicians other than the mayor of London jumped on the bandwagon.  The London Evening Standard gleefully reported that the Houses of Parliament were lit up in rainbow colours.  Well, after a fashion.

“The rainbow illumination of Parliament is our signal of support for sodomy,” said John Bercow, the Commons Speaker.  Sorry to misquote him. Actually, he said: ‘.. of support for equality’.

Moreover, the Prime Minister flew the rainbow flag over 10 Downing Street.  Thersa May put every true Christian, Othodox Jew, Muslim and for that matter every decent person in the realm, firmly in their place.

From protest to fashionable

Gay Pride has moved from protest to fashionable in forty years.  However, not everyone in the gay sub-culture is happy.  Peter Tatchell complained in the Guardian: ‘What began in 1972 as a protest for gay rights has now morphed into a commercialised, bureaucratic and rule-bound event, which too often reflects the wishes of the city authorities, not the LGBT community.’

The veteran campaigner went on to observe ‘a mere 26,500 people will be permitted to march. This is a fraction of the number who would march if it were a free and open event’.

Many might think 26,500 is more than enough dysfunctional people parading through our capital city.  But when Gay Pride becomes as much a part of the calendar as Christmas, we need to take notice and start praying very hard for our nation to repent.  And keep our passports up to date just in case the mind of God is for judgment on the UK, rather than for mercy.

Conversion therapy ‘abusive’, says Jayne

Jayne Ozanne, enmeshed in defending the indefensible

Jayne Ozanne, enmeshed in defending the indefensible

Meanwhile, one Jayne Ozanne, speaking at a weekend event in York, condemned so-called conversion therapy.  This is where people who wish to be free of same-sex attraction seek psychiatric help.  She said:

“Conversion therapy is condemned by professionals as being harmful to LGBT people as it is based on a misguided belief that being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is wrong. This leads to increased mental health problems for LGBT community due to stigmatization.”

No, that’s not a ‘misguided belief’, Jayne, that is the plain teaching of scripture:

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.  Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Mar 10:6 (Jesus said) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

And being ‘one flesh’, in that full wonderful God-given spiritual, emotional and physical sense, is something a pair of gays, or two lesbians, can never do.  Moreover, the ‘increased mental health problems’ are from gays and lesbians knowing what they are doing is plain wrong.  If it were from ‘stigmatization’, mental health problems for LGBT’s would be diminishing with greater media-driven acceptance.  They aren’t.  It isn’t.


Just why is transgenderism an even greater assault on the Gospel than homosexuality?  Click here to read about the Canadian baby whose mother (sorry, ‘parent’) insists she (sorry, ‘they’) has no gender.

Click on the links below to share this post:


Jul 05

Saudi Arabia funding UK extremism

Tom Wilson names Saudi Arabia as a major funder of extremist ideology in the UK in today's Henry Jackson Society report

Tom Wilson names Saudi Arabia as a major funder of extremist ideology in the UK in today’s Henry Jackson Society report

Saudi Arabia is the leading overseas nation funding Muslim extremist ideology, a think-tank has claimed.

The Henry Jackson Society is named after the late anticommunist US Democrat hawk.  It has investigated links between a number of Gulf States and British mosques.

Its report, linked here, is published at a critical time.  The UK Government refuse to release their own report on foreign funding of Islamic extremism.  Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt have ganged up on Qatar, accusing it of sponsoring terrorism.  That charge now looks hypocritical.  Qatar, of course, is home to the TV news station Al Jazeera.

Saudi Arabia ‘Foremost’

The report’s author is one Tom Wilson. He writes: ‘The foreign funding for Islamist extremism in Britain primarily comes from governments and government linked foundations based in the Gulf, as well as Iran. Foremost among these has been Saudi Arabia,’ he writes. He discovered that since the 1960s the Arabian state ‘has sponsored a multimillion dollar effort to export Wahhabi Islam across the Islamic world’.  Naturally, the ‘Islamic world’ includes ‘Muslim communities in the West’.

‘In the UK this funding has primarily taken the form of endowments to mosques and Islamic educational institutions, which have in turn played host to extremist preachers and the distribution of extremist literature. Influence has also been exerted through the training of British Muslim religious leaders in Saudi Arabia, as well as the use of Saudi textbooks in a number of the UK’s independent Islamic schools.

‘A number of Britain’s most serious Islamist hate preachers sit within the Salafi-Wahhabi ideology and are linked to extremism sponsored from overseas, either by having studied in Saudi Arabia as part of scholarship programmes, or by having been provided with extreme literature and material within the UK itself.’

UK Wahhabist mosques increased 60%

The think-tank says the money pouring out of Saudi Arabia  has increased in recent years. This has in turn increased the number of mosques in the UK promoting Islamic extremism.  Giving references, the report says:

‘In 2007 Saudi Arabia was estimated to be spending at least $2 billion annually on promoting Wahhabism worldwide. By 2015 that figure was believed to have doubled. The impact of this increased spending may well have been felt in Britain. In 2007, estimates put the number of mosques in Britain adhering to Salafism and Wahhabism at 68.  Seven years later, the number of British mosques identified with Wahhabism had risen to 110.’  That is a 62% increase.

Reaction of politicians

Theresa May getting on a bit too well with Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Muhammad bin Nayef

Theresa May getting on a bit too well with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Muhammad bin Nayef

Politicians have reacted in various ways to the report.  Labour’s Dan Jarvis, once suggested as a leadership possibility, endorsed the report.

According to the BBC, ‘Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has called for the immediate suspension of UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia because of its human rights record and involvement in military action in Yemen.’

Meanwhile, Theresa May insisted the UK’s historic relationship with the desert kingdom is important for British security and trade.  She visited Saudi Arabia in April, and gained yet more arms deals.

The Independent reports recent UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia are worth a whopping £3.3 billion.

Extremism funding report ‘may never be published’

Tom Wilson says: ‘In June 2017 the UK government pledged to establish a commission for countering extremism.’ Accordingly, his report calls for this new body to prioritise the issue of foreign funding for Islamist extremism.  It also deplores the Government’s refusal so far to publish a report on the matter.  In January 2016, Prime Minister David Cameron told the Extremism Analysis Unit to investigate, as the Observer reported.  Theresa May was then Home Secretary, responsible for the Unit.

But the Guardian said in May: ’18 months later, the Home Office confirmed the report had not yet been completed and said it would not necessarily be published, calling the contents “very sensitive”.

‘A decision would be taken “after the election by the next government” about the future of the investigation, a Home Office spokesman said.’

MPs must take notice

Well, that’s now.  So where is the announcement of publication?  Could it be the Home Office report fingers Saudi Arabia, our main ‘Gulf Ally’ and armaments market?  The press has widely reported, for example here in the Indy, that Saudi Arabia and Turkey support and finance Sunni Salafist jihadist groups in Syria.  This report in The Atlantic highlights the importance of Salafist ideology in the terrorist mindset.  Muslim muhajideen fighting against US forces in Afghanistan or Israel in the Holy land are encouraged and too often funded by Saudi Arabia.  But what if the Saudi-funded extremists were a bit closer to home?

We need to know.  The UK Government must publish its report.  But until then, the Henry Jackson Society have done a good service in this instance.  They have shone a light into some very murky places.  We can only pray our MPs take notice.  The Governments’ first duty is to keep us safe.  They must take action now to stop the flow of money from this repressive, barbaric, Islamist regime.

You can email your MP using this Parliament link.  Ask your MP when the Government will publish its report into foreign funding of extremism.

Christian ethics would also demand an end to arms sales to the Saudis (as a start) In a complete rethink of our foreign policy:

2Chronicles 19:2 And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD. 

Luke 12:2 For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.

Click on the links below to share this article:


Jul 04

Canadian mother puts transgender curse on baby

Transgender Kori Doty with her daughter

Transgender Kori Doty with her daughter

An eight-month old baby has been given a Canadian health card with no gender marker. The media claim it is the first case in the world.

A health card seems to be a little like a British NHS card. It is not a registration of birth.  A Canadian court will hear arguments over the latter.

The child’s mother, whom the mainstream media, such as the BBC and the Independent, ludicrously insist on calling ‘the parent’, does not want to admit her baby is either a girl or a boy.

Transgender pronoun nonsense

Therefore, the Province has issued the health card with a ‘U’ in the space for ‘sex’, which could be for ‘undetermined’ or ‘unassigned’. Essentially, this is a case of a grown-up forcing her own prejudices on an infant.

Naturally, it was left to the Daily Caller, the thinking man’s Huffington Post, to reveal the Canadian tot is actually a girl.

The BBC says: ‘Parent Kori Doty – a non-binary transgender person who identifies as neither male nor female – aims to allow the child to discover their own gender.’ She has hired a lawyer to fight to omit the child’s gender from her birth certificate.

The BBC totally goes along with the fiction and the transgender pronoun nonsense.  Its website says: ‘The parent gave birth to Searyl Atli in November at a friend’s home in British Columbia. Kori Doty, who prefers to use the pronoun they, argues that a visual inspection at birth is unable to determine what gender that person will have or identify with later in life. They want to keep Searyl’s sex off all official records.’

Kori Doty is transgender

The Sun absurdly refers to Hayden Cross as a 'pregnant man'

The Sun absurdly refers to Hayden Cross as a ‘pregnant man’

Naturally, Searyl Atli is a ‘they’ as well.

The Independent chips in: ‘Doty claims a medical examination at birth cannot determine a child’s true gender because a baby might be intersex or grow up to identify with a gender that is different to their biological sex.

“When I was born, doctors looked at my genitals and made assumptions about who I would be, and those assignments followed me and followed my identification throughout my life,” they said. “Those assumptions were incorrect, and I ended up having to do a lot of adjustments since then”.’

Those ‘adjustments’ appear to be Kori Doty taking just enough male hormone tablets to sport a scraggy beard.

Clearly, charlatan surgeons have not yet adjusted anything ‘down below’ or in the nursing department to reflect the gender Kori thinks she is.

The Sun was not quite so bad, saying ‘its mum insists only the tot can decide what sex it wants to be’.

But the Sun signed up transgender Hayden Cross.  Then the paper ridiculously called her Britain’s ‘first transgender dad’.

Daughter stands in the need of prayer

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation first ran the story about Kori Doti’s daughter.  Naturally, CBC is just as politically correct. It quotes Kori Doty as saying: ‘I’m raising Searyl in in such a way that until they have the sense of self and command of vocabulary to tell me who they are, I’m recognising them as a baby and trying to give them all the love and support to be the most whole person that they can be outside of the restrictions that come with the boy box and the girl box.’

The Province of British Columbia refuses to issue Searyl a birth certificate with no gender on it. They only issued the health card so the child could access medical services.

Doty’s lawyer is one barbara findlay. That’s right, she objects to capital letters. Moreover, Ontario and Alberta are currently reviewing their policies to include a third, non-binary gender option on birth certificates. Doty herself is inevitably a member of the ‘Gender-Free ID Coalition’.

What will her daughter make of this nonsense when she is old enough to make decisions?  Has her mother already cursed her with transgenderism? Or will she reject her mother’s words and her fantasy land? This daughter stands in the need of prayer.

Change coming to British Passports

Campaigners in the UK have already called for British passports to be allowed to include a third gender for people who do not identify as male or female.

UK Passport could be changed

UK Passport could be changed

The Government said earlier this year that it is reviewing rules on how gender is registered on official documents.

‘The UK already has strong laws in place to protect transgender people and we are committed to delivering further positive changes for them,’ a spokesperson said in April.

‘That is why we have committed to reviewing the Gender Recognition Act to look at ways of streamlining and de-medicalising the process for changing a person’s legal gender, as well as reviewing gender markers in official documents.’

The homosexual rebellion

The Queen enacted the Sexual Offences Act 1967 fifity years ago this month. The Act started the relentless promotion of sodomy and all things homosexual. Many of our readers might be tempted to say homosexual practice is just another sexual sin. However, it goes much further than that.

We object to all things sodomite on the grounds that homosexuality rebels against God’s natural order, that its activists clearly intended to destroy the family, that it brought appalling consequences of ill health on its practitioners and costs on the taxpayer, that those caught up in it would start recruiting the young, destroying lives along the way.  Furthermore, we said the homosexual values of hedonism, crassness, self-absorption coupled with a disregard for self, others and the future would negatively impact on society as a whole.  All that has come true.

At its root, homosexuality rebels against God’s institution of the family, found in Genesis chapter two:

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

The transgender rebellion

Caster Semenya comes first, as expected, in the women's 800m semi-final at the 2016 Rio Olympics.

Caster Semenya comes first, as expected, in the women’s 800m semi-final at the 2016 Rio Olympics.

But transgenderism goes back a step. It rebels against God’s created order itself:

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

We know about the sad condidtion of ‘intersex’, where external organs are typically at odds with internal ones. It is extremely rare, but the South African athlete Caster Semenya is one example.

She/he was born with the external manifestation of female genitalia, but with internal testes. Real women athletes understandably object to racing against the testosterone factory that is Caster. They simply cannot compete with someone awash with male hormones and built like a brick outhouse.

But we do not hear Kori Doti’s daughter has been diagnosed with intersexualism. God evidently made her, like Doti, genetically a girl. It is just Doti’s self-centred lunacy which is causing the problem.

Perversion of medicine

Frank Godwin's representation of Treasure Island's Long John Silver

Frank Godwin’s representation of Treasure Island’s Long John Silver

It is sheer idiocy for society to just go along with someone who decides his or her God-given gender is not satisfactory. Such people need psychological, emotional and indeed spiritual assistance to accept their God-given gender.

What they do not need is doctors prescribing powerful hormone drugs to stop the onset of puberty. That is child abuse. Nor do they need ‘reconstructive surgery. That is a perversion of medicine.

It is like me deciding I am Long John Silver and expecting you to fund my operation to remove my leg and buy me a parrot.

In no other area of life would we accept such a life-shattering decision to be made on the say-so of an individual. If I said someone had hit me, I should be expected to provide witnesses to prove my case in court. In other words, the court would require some evidence.

Here there is none. Indeed, any sensible society would say: ‘your own genetics witness against you.’

But we now allow an individual to play God with their own body. The UK’s Gender Recognition Act 2004 started the rot, allowing people to go back and falsify their birth certificates. Now we are at the stage of a Canadian mother imposing transgenderism on own daughter.

Welcome, again, to the post-truth world.

Isaiah 59:14 And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. 


Gender-neutral pronouns at Oxford

Anti-Transgender bus banned from Barcelona

Activism Marketing and the Transgender Doll

Transgender documentary spills beans (If you click on no other link read this one!)

Irresponsible BBC promoting transgenderism

‘Woman’ accused of raping a man is a man


Jun 30

Bristol preachers acquitted on appeal

Preachers Michael Overd (l) and Michael Stockwell were acquitted at Bristol Crown Court

Preachers Michael Overd (l) and Michael Stockwell were acquitted at Bristol Crown Court

Two street preachers convicted by lay magistrates won their appeal in Bristol Crown Court yesterday.

Michael Overd and Michael Stockwell had fines and costs totalling over £2,000 each set aside.

Judge Martin Picton watched a video which Mr Overd took to safeguard himself from malicious prosecution.

Moreover, His Honour took that as the prosecution case and heard only one witness.

After the evidence of Mr Overd and Mr Stockwell, the trial concluded with brief legal arguments.  Barristers Paul Diamond and Michael Phillips set out the case law on behalf of the preachers.

Preachers convicted by Freemason magistrate

Magistrate Robert Stacey, a leading Freemason, convicted the preachers in February 2017

Magistrate Robert Stacey, a leading Freemason, convicted the preachers in February 2017

Despite the video, the Crown Prosecution Service brought charges last year against the two evangelists and two other preachers.  In February of this year, the CPS dropped all charges against Don Kahns, an American missionary.  The magistrates court decided the prosecution had made no case against another man, Adrian Clark.

But, as Christian Voice reported at the time, the bench found Messrs Overd and Stockwell guilty of disorderly conduct, religiously aggravated.  Afterwards, we discovered the chairman of the magistrates was a high-ranking Freemason.  We posted a further report into Freemasonry and its ‘secrets’.  In that report we named magistrate Robert Stacey as ‘Provincial Grand Scribe Ezra’ in the Royal Arch Provincial Grand Chapter of Gloucestershire and Herefordshire.

Christianity and the claims of Jesus Christ stand against all the occultism and secrecy of Freemasonry.

The retired laboratory manager and his colleagues, Mr Gerry McDermot and Mrs Josephine Ramsden, thought an offence was ‘religiously aggravated’ if defendants took exception to a religion, Islam in this case.  The law says the defendant must display hatred towards its adherents or suspected adherents.

Appeal allowed

Michael Phillips represented Michael Overd

Michael Phillips represented Michael Overd

Accordingly, Judge Picton dismissed the aggravated nature of the convictions early in the hearing.  Nor did His Honour have any problem with the preachers using the language of the King James Bible.

The court heard from barrister Paul Diamond, representing Michael Stockwell.  Mr Diamond said religions are competitive and the truth each claims to hold is incompatible to another.  Referring to a restless element in the crowd, he told the judge, ‘A lawful act cannot be made unlawful by the acts of third parties.’

Michael Phillips, representing Michael Overd, told the court the case was almost exactly the same as that of Alison Redmond-Bate.  She was convicted of obstructing a police officer when she refused to stop preaching in the face of a hostile crowd on the steps of Wakefield Cathedral in 1998.  In a famous judgment, Sir Stephen Sedley quashed her conviction.

Free speech includes the unwelcome

Paul Diamond (l) chats to this journalist after the case

Paul Diamond (l) chats to this journalist after the case

Freedom to speak the inoffensive, said Lord Justice Sedley, was not worth having.  Free speech encompassed ‘the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and provocative,’ he said.  The only proviso on ‘provocative’ was: ‘provided it did not tend to provoke violence’.

is clear His Lordship meant the person speaking must not whip up his hearers to violence against third parties. Prosecutors will try to argue a preacher would be outside the law if a listener was moved to violence against him himself.  But as Mr Diamond said, hecklers cannot have a veto which is expressed through the threat of violence.  And Sir Stephen said: ‘A police officer has no right to call upon a citizen to desist from lawful conduct.’

Indeed, Judge Picton said the court, ‘Should not focus on reactions.  Some became aggravated, but we ask ourselves if the behaviour itself was disorderly.’

In the event, the court held it was not.  His Honour found for the preachers.  He allowed the appeal to the delight of around twenty supporters gathered in the public gallery.

Here is the report from the Bristol Post local newspaper.

Preach the Gospel to every creature

John Wesley's chapel in Bristol's Broadmead - that's the man of God on his horse.

John Wesley’s chapel in Bristol’s Broadmead – that’s the man of God on his horse.

Earlier, in his evidence, Michael Stockwell said, ‘Jesus commands me in Mark and Matthew to go out and preach the Gospel to every creature’.  He told the court there would often be people on the fringes listening, even if a trouble-maker had come to the front.  ‘Most of these people never go to church,’ he said, ‘They will hear the word but maybe later at home they will think and cry to God for mercy.’

After the verdict, a small group of us went back to the place in Broadmead where the alleged offences had occurred.  The site is right outside John Wesley’s chapel in Bristol.  An evangelist called Daniel climbed on a stump to preach while we stood and helped to gather a crowd.  Around fifty people were listening by the time Daniel came down and we all started to engage the crowd in twos and threes.

It was shocking how many younger people have bought into the homosexual narrative and are even supporting transsexualism.  Truth has fallen in the street.  But preachers do what they can.  Above all we had good conversations.  Who knows if he is planting a seed or merely turning over the ground for another to plant.


Isaiah 52:7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

Matthew 13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Romans 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

2Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Click on the links below to share this story:


Older posts «