Britain in Sin

The United Kingdom today is in deep decline. According to the social and economic trends, crime, family breakdown, illegitimacy, infertility, drug-taking, debt, indecency, profligacy and perversion are rising in a manner which appears to be out of control. Decisions from both European and British Courts are allowing bureaucrats, homosexuals and feminists to impose their morality on the people of the United Kingdom .

A vast number of people are disenchanted by our politicians. Her Majesty’s Government was elected with the support of less than a third of the electorate. Just 31% voted Labour at the general election. Almost as many, 29% of those eligible to vote, stayed at home, in what was hardly a ringing endorsement of either the ruling party or of politicians in general.

To add to a general sense of bewilderment, stories are appearing in the press of happenings ever more strange or perverse, weird or depraved, day by day. We could give no end of examples, but any we could give today would be trumped by others worse in kind by the time this reaches the reader. What is worse, stories which would have made the front page of the papers just five years ago no longer merit a mention, so inured have we become to the sight of wickedness and perversity.

Naturally, the humanist great and good, the quango-sitters and opinion-formers, regard many of the stories which dismay ordinary people as examples of how much more tolerant and civilised our nation has become in recent years. The political oligarchy appears to agree. The message from the election manifestos was upbeat, verging even on the messianic. In Parliament, there is said to be nothing wrong that “our party” cannot put right, or if there is something that “our party” cannot put right, then it is beyond the ability of any government to do anything about it. It is probably not too worrisome a thing anyway. Parliament appears to ignore questions of real importance and to engage in a sort of Tweedledum and Tweedledee knock-about for benefit of the public. The media, that is, television, radio and newspapers, assist the process of limiting dissent, channelling discussion along certain predetermined lines.

The people of Britain see things rather differently from the political and media consensus. The Daily Telegraph commissioned Gallop to carry out a survey of attitudes in 1996 and compare them to those surveyed in 1968. The “feel-good” factor could hardly have been more absent. They found the British people “filled with gloom.” (Daily Telegraph 03/06/96) On the eight subjects covered by the survey, “pessimists outnumbered optimists in every case” and in every case, there were more of the former and fewer of the latter than 28 years ago.

On the subject of health, 68% thought this was improving in 1968 against 16% who believed it was worsening. Today the majority is reversed, with 34% believing that health is improving as against 51% who say it is worsening.

Standards of behaviour were thought to be worsening in 1968 by 62%, as against 14% who suggested they were improving. The margin has widened, with 92% saying “worsening” and a mere 1% for “improving.”

Standards of honesty were thought to be worsening by 50% and improving by 12% in 1968, but this generation is even more melancholy, the gap widening to 74% versus only 3%, a majority of 71% for the proposition that standards of honesty are getting worse.

Standards of knowledge and levels of intelligence were thought in 1968 to be improving, by majorities of 78% to 5% and 66% to 7% respectively. Today, the picture is reversed; knowledge and intelligence are believed to be declining, by majorities of 47% to 28% and 33% to 26% respectively.

Only in the area of religion was little change found. 61% thought religion was worsening in 1968 as against 59% today. 10% said it was improving in 1968, compared with 4% today. In the areas of happiness and peace of mind, what was already a negative outlook in 1968 has turned even more sour. Happiness was said to be improving by 28% and worsening by 33% of the 1968 sample. Gallop only found 7% in 1996 who thought happiness was improving, but 53% who said it was getting worse.

“Peace of Mind” was thought to be worsening for 48% of the 1968 respondents and improving for 14%. A generation later, a staggering 76% of those questioned believed that their fellows enjoy less peace of mind of mind than before, with just 3% saying they have more.

It is possible that the “feel-good” factor has returned with the election of a new government, but what is more likely is that the new mood is symptomatic of a transient, volatile euphoria. The high levels of “honeymoon” satisfaction with the government being recorded by the pollsters at the time of writing may disappear rapidly once its pretensions are exposed. At such a time, the national nihilism typified by the relentless growth in drug abuse indicated in the chart will return with a vengeance.

It is plain that, despite greater life-expectancy, more consumer goods and more free time, as a nation, than ever before, the material things in which people appear to put their trust do not satisfy. The superficial emotionalism seen after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales betrays a nation seeking something, or some-one, in whom to believe. That some-one could and should be God in Jesus Christ, but in general, the Christian Church in our land is unwilling to preach the Commandments of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The people are left to try to make sense of the world on their own, and no-one in spiritual or temporal leadership appears able to articulate or address the concerns about which they told the Gallop researchers.

We offer below a way of bringing the adverse social and economic trends and the pessimism of the people together. We believe that there is a unifying strand, and that it lies in national rebellion from God. In this paper we show the link between the departure of the United Kingdom from the law-system inherent in her Christian Constitution and the results in social trends. To attempt to give some structure to our conclusions, we present the data in the order which God himself has proposed, that of the Ten Commandments.

There is space herein for only a limited defence of why various Acts of Parliament are regarded in this paper as “unrighteous legislation.” We do, however, provide references from Holy Scripture which lead us to our conclusions. We are keen to foster discussion on whether we have correctly interpreted the mind of God. However, our basic assumptions are these:

Firstly, that God is interested and active in the affairs of nations equally as much as he concerns Himself and deals with individuals, (See Job 34:29; Jer 18:7-10; Matt 11:20-24)

Secondly, that God uses the standard of His holy law as a measure of the obedience of nations, (Ps 66:4,7; Ezek 20:11-13,19) and

Thirdly, that He does this today just as much as He did it in the time of Noah, Abraham, Moses and the Prophets. (Ps 90:2; Luke 16:17; Heb 13:8)

It is unusual today for a nation to look to Almighty God for its legislation, so used have we all become to making laws for ourselves. But in making our own laws, we have become our own gods. Like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, (Gen 3:5) we have decided what is right and wrong on our own authority.
The Christian position is that all authority comes only from God, (Ps 24:1) and that God is the governor among the nations (Psalm 22:28). On top of that, in the Gospel, Jesus Christ said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt 28:18), “All things are delivered unto me of my father” (Luke 10:22), and “The Father hath committed all judgment unto the son” (John 5:22).

It is scarcely appreciated by Christians, and conveniently ignored by the political class, that the constitution of the UK is specifically Christian, and totally in accord with the Biblical position stated above. Every English monarch since Alfred the Great has acknowledged Almighty God as sovereign over their realm, and every one since Edgar has been anointed by God to rule in the Name of Christ.

Continuing this unbroken tradition, before Her Majesty the Queen was anointed and crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, at her coronation on 2nd June 1953, she was asked to make certain solemn promises.

In answer to a question from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Her Majesty gave a solemn promise to God and to the people of the United Kingdom to “Maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel.” Her Majesty undertook also “to maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law,” and “to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland according to their respective laws and customs.”

To reinforce that promise, Her Majesty was given the Holy Bible as “the rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes.” The understanding was that the laws and customs of these islands were to be found in the Holy Bible, and that they were not to be changed, but the people were to be governed thereby. The Queen was presented at one point with the Orb from the Crown Jewels, with the words:

“Receive this Orb set under the Cross, and remember that the whole world is subject to the Power and Empire of Christ our Redeemer.”

Her Majesty’s promise to “Maintain the Laws of God” and the knowledge that Holy Scripture is the rule for Her Majesty’s Government provides a standard by which to judge whether Her Majesty’s reign has been good or bad, as the Biblical writers of Kings and Chronicles would put it.

Has Her Majesty’s Government executed justice with mercy, in accordance with the Laws of God? Or have they legislated in opposition to and in defiance of the Laws of God? Have she and her governments lived up to her solemn promise made to God and to her people when that triple contract – between God, queen and people – was made on that day in June 1953 or not? By measuring their – that is, her – legislation against the plumbline of the Ten Commandments, and against the Biblical Laws built around them, we should be able to tell.

Furthermore, God himself makes specific promises to those nations which keep his statutes. The most famous Biblical passages are at the beginning of Deuteronomy 28 and the end of Psalm 144. the promises include:

Social stability, economic well-being, in manufacture, trade and agriculture,
a strong family base, with sons and daughters in whom parents can delight,
an absence of crime, the presence of justice, and strength in foreign affairs.

To sum it up, the Psalmist says:
Happy (or blessed) is that people, whose God is the LORD. (Ps. 144:15)

In contrast, the latter part of Deuteronomy 28 describes what happens to a nation which rebels against the laws of God. The areas of life previously blessed are instead cursed. This paper will show that the passing of unrighteous laws in the United Kingdom , in breach of Her Majesty’s solemn Coronation Oath, has had exactly the effect prophesied in the Word of God. The charts of social and economic indicators record adverse trends, speaking in many cases of human misery, which accurately follow our national rebellion from God.

For they shall eat, and not have enough: they shall commit whoredom, and shall not increase: because they have left off to take heed to the LORD. (Hosea 4:10)

Let us now look at Britain in Sin.

And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt , out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Exod 20:1-3

See also: Gen 1:1; Josh 24:15; Ps 2:12; Ps 111:10; Is 42:1; Matt 11:27; John 5:27; Eph 1:21.

Whatever a nation accords the status of divinity determines the source of its morality and law-system. For us in Christian Voice, (and in the British Constitution) God makes the Law, and it is the duty of human beings and their institutions to obey it.

For mankind since the Enlightenment it has increasingly been man who makes the law. The first Commandment has degenerated into mere lip-service. Parliament at the beginning of every day in session prays to:
“Almighty God, by whom alone kings reign and princes decree justice, and from whom cometh all wisdom, counsel and understanding.” (Prov 8:14-15)

But as soon as that prayer is finished, legislation is considered, and Almighty God, by whom alone kings reign, is pushed aside whilst man gets on with the important job of legislating on his own authority and in his own wisdom. (1 Cor 2:5)

It is important to recognise that the First Commandment, to “have no other gods” is not one that the state has to enforce, by policing men’s souls. Rather is it one that the state is to observe, by placing itself in humility under the authority of God and legislating according to His will. Looked at in this way, the First Commandment has been broken by the UK with:

1. Ratification of the Charter of the United Nations 1945.

The Charter of the UN makes no mention of God. It speaks instead in the name of “the peoples of the United Nations.” (Gen 11:4) Its faith is “in fundamental human rights” and it claims “to strengthen universal peace.” (Jer 6:14; Matt 24:5-7; 1 Thess 5:3) Its faith is humanist mixed with New Age, its tone is messianic and its failure on its own terms abject. The UN and its agencies have interfered in the internal affairs of sovereign states most notoriously for some of us by heavy promotion of environmentalism, feminism, birth control and abortion. At the same time the UN has become a byword for corruption, catastrophe, waste and abuse all over the world whilst UNESCO (from which the UK withdrew) has presumed to indoctrinate ordinary people into the sanctity of the UN cause.

2. Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.

The UK voted for this Declaration in the UN General Assembly on 10/12/48. “Human beings … should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood,” it declares. Fine words, but with the UDHR, the Declaration of the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (1967) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990) qv, the UN pushed God aside to move into active lawmaking. (Ps 2:2-3; Ps 50:16,17; Dan 7:25; Jas 4:12) But the invention of “Human Rights” usurps the place of God in any case. For example, it is arrogant of states or super-states to grant us “the right to marry and found a family.” That is not a right to be handed down by man, it is a freedom granted by God. (1 Cor 8:5-6) The UN is now promoting world government under a commission chaired by Ingvar Carlsson and Shridath Ramphal. (Commission on Global Governance: “Our Global Neighbourhood” UOP 1995)

3. Acceptance of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950.

The UK was a founder of the Council of Europe in 1949, and signed the ECHR in Rome in 1950. No doubt its intention was to bring the law of other countries up to the standard of the UK , but the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has more recently been used to impose humanist law on the UK and to overturn God’s Law. (Neh 10:29; Ps 105:7,14; Eccl 5:8; Is 40:21-23) Forming a treaty with those who do not accept God and Christ and ruler and saviour of the world would always end badly. (2 Chr 19:2, 20:35-37) The Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has committed the Government to incorporate the Convention into British Law, although it is not clear at the time of writing to what extent he intends to give British judges the same power as their European masters in being able to instruct Parliament to change British law.

4. Right of Individual petition to Commission in 1966.

Individuals gained in 1966 the right to petition the European Commission of Human Rights as a first step to bringing a case against the UK in the European Court of Human Rights. Homosexual activists have been amongst those successful in forcing the UK to repeal laws based on the Law of God (qv) and pass immoral laws instead. The sovereign rule of God in the UK has thus been given away to European lawyers who decide morality by a vote. The number of cases successfully brought against the UK has increased dramatically in recent years. It is surely no co-incidence that the UK has, or had, the richest and most stable Christian heritage in the world and the most explicitly Christian constitution.

5. The Government has signalled its general direction for the future by rejoining UNESCO in one of its first policy decisions.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Exod 20:4-6

See also: Lev 19:4; Ps 97:7; Ps 115:3-8; Jer 2:11; Micah 4:5; Rom 1:20-32.

This Commandment is the mirror of the First. When a nation ceases to serve God, the sovereignty owed to God alone always passes to some aspect of God’s creation. Today, the “image” which our nation worships is mankind and his wisdom. Specifically, this Commandment has been broken by:

1. The European Communities Act 1972 by which UK joined EEC,

2. The E.C.(Amendment) Act 1986 which approved Single European Act,

3. The E.C.(Amendment) Act 1993 which approved The Maastrict Treaty, and

4. The Treaty of Amsterdam 1997.

It may be argued that in joining the UN and the Council of Europe, the UK was carried along by post-war enthusiasm and optimism in the abilities of mankind. Perhaps in ignorance of the intentions of those behind them, these institutions were not seen at the time to be about to turn into the monsters they are today. No such excuse can be made in the case of the European Union.

By entering into the structures of the European Union, the UK actively and consciously gave away the sovereignty entrusted to her by God. (See: 1 Sam 10:1; 1 Kgs 1:39; Ps 9:17,17; Prov 16:12; Is 30:1-3, 31:1-3) The Treaties of the EU make no mention of Almighty God, and the contracting parties set up what amounts to a super-state in their own name. The European Commission, an unelected and sovereign bureaucracy, makes the law on its own authority.

Idols do not have to be little plastic gods, or plaster statues. Paul in Romans 1 shows that any time man exalts himself above God, he has set up an idol. In its bureaucratic centralism, its growing totalitarian control, and its overarching arrogance, the EU is a perfect example of an idolatrous pagan anti-Christ system of government. (See: Gen 13:13; Ps 82:5-7; Prov 14:12; Ezek 16:49-50; 2 Thess 2:4; 2 Pet 2:14-19; Rev 13:1-18; 17:10-14, 18:23.)

5. The Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951, which legalised necromancy.

The Fraudulent Mediums Act repealed the remainder of the Witchcraft Act 1735 after the actual prohibitions against witchcraft itself had been repealed under Queen Victoria around 1867. The Fraudulent Mediums Act is very much weaker than even the remains of the Witchcraft Act which it replaced. All occult arts are legal under it, even though they are expressly forbidden by the Law of God. (See Exod 22:18; Lev 19:31; Numb 33:4; Deut 4:19; Ezek 8:9-18, 20:28-32; John 14:6; Acts 8:9,18-24; 2 Cor 11:14; Heb 9:27) Necromancy or consulting the dead is specifically legal under it, and Spiritualist “churches” are consequently flourishing. Only pretend-necromancy is illegal under the Act, and only then if it is done for gain. There have been only 5 successful prosecutions in fifteen years.

6. The Sunningdale Agreement 1973 and the Hillsborough Agreement 1985.

The Sunningdale Ageement, made between the governments of the UK and Eire, established the short-lived Northern Ireland Assembly and set up a “Council of Ireland” which could make recommendations in relation to human rights in Northern Ireland .
At Hillsborough, the Republic of Ireland was given a consultative role in the affairs of Ulster . The British Government said that the status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom was subject to the consent of a majority of its people. In this way, the UK showed that it was prepared to negotiate about the future of the province and that it had no objection on principle to a united Ireland .

It follows from what we have already observed that the Government of Her Majesty should never have allowed a foreign state any jurisdiction or influence over a part of this United Kingdom . Both Sunningdale and Hillsborough raised the expectations of the men of violence that they could bomb and shoot the British out of Northern Ireland . Such was the encouragement given to the IRA/Sinn Fein that the campaigns of the paramilitaries intensified strongly after the signing of each Agreement.

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Exod 20:7

See also: Lev 24:10-16; 2 Sam 12:14; Is 52:5; Rom 1:30; Col 3:8; 2 Tim 3:2; Jas 2:7.

The present British legal position on blasphemy is less restrictive than in the Third Commandment: Blasphemy according to case law is “any writing about God or Christ or Christian religion, or some sacred subject in words which are so scurrilous or abusive or offensive that if they are published they would tend to vilify the Christian religion and lead to a breach of the peace.” (Official Report of the House of Lords, 23 February 1978 col 302)

The blasphemy law was last invoked in the Gay News trial in 1977, which led to the debate in which the above definition was given. Previously to that, there was a successful prosecution in 1922. So the law appears to have been effective in preventing blasphemy in print. Having said that, the third commandment has been broken by the UK with the passing of:

1. The Theatres Act 1968, and

2. The Broadcasting Act 1990.

The 1968 Act abolished censorship of scripts and opened the way for blasphemy, brutality, sodomy and other perversions to be offered on stage for the purpose of gain and amusement.

Practitioners in the performing arts seem driven to explore the limits of taste and decency, so it is no surprise that blasphemy is now routine. Frequently the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself is attacked. We have failed as a nation to legislate to keep the airwaves and television screens free of blasphemy. There are no penalties in the 1990 Act for permitting blasphemy on TV or radio.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exod 20:8-11

See also: Gen 2:2-3; Exod 23:10-12; Lev 26:34-35; Ezek 20:12; Matt 12:1-3; Luke 14:1-6; John 20:19; Acts 20:7.

Broken by various pieces of legislation including:

1. The Shops Act 1950,

2. Repeal in 1958 of Sunday Observance Act 1625, to allow sporting events on Sunday,

3. the Sunday Theatre Act 1972, which liberalised the Sunday Observance Act 1780, and

4. The Sunday Trading Act 1993.

Christendom has observed the Lord’s Day as the Christian Sabbath from the earliest times. Simply, if a nation deifies God rather than shopping, it will set aside a day on which no trade is carried out, in order to keep the fourth commandment. God tells us that He regards the keeping of the Sabbath day as the key test of whether a nation follows Him or not.

Where a nation does not keep the sabbath, whether the sabbath day, or the sabbath fallow year – God’s divine version of the European Union Common Agricultural Policy’s “set-aside” – God says that eventually the land will enjoy its sabbaths, when the godless dissolute nation is thrown out.

The Sunday Trading Act 1993 was probably the last straw in our progressive national Sabbath-breaking, and is both an act of defiance against God, and a judgment on the Christian Church, which began its opposition against the Act by a compromised position which God could not have been expected to honour with success. (See 1 Sam 2:30.)

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. Exod 20:12

See also: Lev 19:3,32; Deut 19:14; Prov 22:28; Matt 15:4, 19:19; Col 3:18-21; 1 Tim 5:1; 1 Pet 5:5.

This is the first Commandment with a promise, (Eph 6:2) and shows the importance of the institution of the family as a sphere of government. A sound family structure is said by God Himself to be vital to all aspects of the welfare of a nation. The Commandment includes having respect for age and authority, the contract between the generations, the roles of male and female and the integrity of the family as a check on the state. It has been broken in the UK by:

1. A tax system which penalises the institution of marriage.

See: Gen 1:27-28; 1 Kgs 4:25; Ps 68:6, 104:23; Eccl 5:18-19, 9:7-9, 1 Tim 5:8.

The way in which successive budgets have penalised marriage and family and rewarded the single has been well rehearsed elsewhere. (Institute of Economic Affairs has published many books on this subject) In the sixties, the family man on an average wage was not in the tax system at all. Today, taxation is so high that most families need both a father’s wage and a mother’s to make ends meet. The social group that has been hardest hit by taxation has been precisely that in which the next generation grows up best: the single-earner married couple and their family.

Child tax allowances were abolished in 1975, the previous Chancellor eroded the married couple’s allowance, and his successor will prefer to treat husband and wife as solitary individuals. As a result, the traditional voluntary work undertaken by married women is not being done, the number of old people in residential homes has increased by 350%, and a generation of under-fives is languishing in the deprivation of day-care.

2. State Social Security.

See: Lev 25:35-38; Deut 14:28-29, 15:4-11; Ps 41:1; Prov 21:25-26, 29:7; Is 58:7; Mal 3:10; Acts 20:35; Eph 4:28; 1 Thess 4:11-12, 5:14; 2 Thess 3:8-12.

The state social security system penalises thrift and marriage and rewards fecklessness and isolation. There is a “faith in the city” school of thought which believes that the extent to which the nation is “Christian” may be gauged by the size of the social security budget. By that yardstick, our nation would be twice as “Christian” as twenty years ago. In actual money, indexed to 1993 prices, the cost of the social security budget rose from under 40 billion pounds in 1973 (indexed for inflation to 1993) to over 90 billion pounds in 1993. It accounts for over a third of total government spending.

Biblically, the extended family is required to look after its own, and any system of social security should be administered by the church so as not to penalise the married and the diligent. We do not find a welfare state in the Bible, we find a welfare individual, a welfare family, a welfare priesthood, and then in the New Testament a welfare church. God has not instituted a welfare state, and we are probably in rebellion to raise one up. At the very least, the construction of a Welfare State indicates a failure of personal, family and church responsibility to the poor.

Simply from a practical point of view, decisions by the state to discern between the deserving and undeserving poor are never taken close enough to the action. When the church has been more involved in the past, welfare has been better organised. Today’s social security system encourages precisely those lifestyles which it ought to discourage.

3. Housing Act 1985

Section 59 of the Housing Act 1985 put unmarried pregnant mothers at the top of the queue for council housing. Our failure to apply Godly principles to welfare is reflected in the statistics for illegitimate births and for the percentage of families headed by a lone parent. The latter saw a particularly steep rise after the 1985 Act.

4. The Family Law Reform Act 1987.

Removed many of the disadvantages of illegitimacy in British Law. Gave unmarried fathers parental rights on application to the court. Gave the clearest possible indication that marriage, and having children within wedlock, does not matter.

5. The Children Act 1989.

See: Ps 127:3-5, 144:12; Prov 10:1, 17:25; Mal 2:15-16; Luke 2:40,49,51.

The idea behind the Children Act is that “the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration,” but the suggestion that parents are, except in extreme circumstances, the best judges of that, is nowhere to be found. The Act even allows a local authority to take a child into care where the child has had a transient dispute with his parents. Homosexuals are already using this Section to persuade adolescent boys to leave the parental home. (See Green “The Sexual Dead-End” p180-182)

The Children Act 1989 also overturned centuries of Christian tradition in British Law by declaring baldly: “The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished.” (Children Act 1989 S.2(4))

6. United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child 1990.

See: Prov 13:24, 22:15, 23:13-14, 29:14-18; Is 3:4-5

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified by the UK in December 1991, with minor reservations, and has the force of an international treaty. It takes precedence over UK law, and under its Article 4 we are obliged to pass laws to implement it. If enforced, it passes the sovereignty of the United Kingdom , in every area touched by the Convention, to a committee of ten child rights activists.

The Committee has already demanded that the God-given duty of parents to discipline their children be legislated away both in the home and in private schools, that parents and the public be “educated” so as to “change the climate of opinion” to achieve this, that more school sex education be provided and parents to be denied their right to remove their children from it, that schools educate children as to the merits of the UN Convention itself, that single-parent benefit levels be increased, that the age of criminal responsibility be raised, and that “Family education” in schools should teach “New man” type equality of roles in child-rearing.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child forms the subject of a Christian Voice Briefing Paper.

7. Deficit budgeting in UK financial affairs.

See: Deut 15:6, 23:19-20, 28:12,41-44; Ps 127:1; Prov 21:20, 22:7, 24:27; Is 22:13, 56:10-12; Luke 12:19, 14:28-30, 15:12-14; Rom 3:18; 1 Cor 15:32.

John Maynard Keynes is the originator of the idea that the state may plan the economy, rather than simply maintain law and order, as the Bible teaches. Keynes, a promiscuous homosexual, hated thrift, saving and financial prudence. He said that governments could spend their way out of recession. In line with his twisted ideas, our government has for decades run large annual budget deficits financed by inflation and borrowing.

Initially it was spending on so-called capital projects which nudged the account into deficit. But since the late seventies, the current account has been increasingly in the red, as the chickens have come home to roost. The huge post-war national debt was being reduced in real terms until recently, but the 1990s have seen an alarming rise. The National Debt stood in 1996 at £391,000m. That is over £6,500 for every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom . £26,608m, almost 10% of the money raised in taxation, was spent last year in interest servicing the National Debt. Last year’s budget deficit turned out at £35 billion. (Financial Statistics No 423 July 1997 T10.1A AQCG and T10.2C AABA) Again, this is reflected in the graphs.

For the last fifteen years the proceeds of privatisation helped to fund the deficit. Without even beginning to consider personal debt, a horrifying problem on its own, the UK has spent and continues to spend our children’s inheritance.

8. Equal Pay Act 1970, Sex Discrimination Acts 1975 & 1986.

See: Gen 1:27, 3:16; Deut 22:5; Is 3:12; 1 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:12-15; Titus 2:4.

A combination of high taxation, the decline of the labour intensive industries which paid a family wage to a unionised work force of men, new technology and equal opportunities born of feminism have together helped jobs historically done by men to pass to women. The employment figures for Great Britain show that the proportion of men aged 16-64 who are economically active fell from 87.6% in 1951 to 71.9% in 1993. There are more economically inactive men today than were unemployed in the great depression. The over 50’s and the young are taking the brunt of it. (ST 1995 T 4.4)

Amongst women the proportion economically active rose from 34.7% to 52.6% over the same period. The greatest rise, from around 30% to over 70%, was amongst women in the 25-34 age group, in other words, women in their child-bearing years. That mothers should deprive their men-folk of work is a national scandal. Women are now allowed to serve in most active service units, on ships and in the front line of the police and fire services. The close proximity of men and women in these situations is almost an incitement by the state to immorality and marital breakdown. The relative physical weakness of women is a growing source of tension in the services.

Tragically, the new feminist policy has already claimed women’s lives. Without doubting their bravery for one moment, Fleur Lombard, killed fighting a fire in February 1996, and Nina Mackay, stabbed leading an arrest team last October, are the first women to die in circumstances in which no civilised nation should ever have put them.

9. Introduction of sex education & state education in general.

See: Deut 6:6-7; Ps 119:9; Prov 1:7-9, 3:1-12, 22:6; Matt 18:6-7; Eph 6:1-4.

The purpose of school sex education as promoted by the tax-payer-funded Family Planning Association appears to be to eradicate Christian sexual morality.

It has helped to corrupt a generation of children, supplanting in too many cases the morality of parents with the rather more dubious morals and practices of sex educators.

Sex education, financed to a large degree by the manufacturers of contraceptives, has promoted promiscuity, pansexuality and cohabitation but never stability and certainly not marriage. We must remind ourselves that it is parents, and in particular fathers, who have the responsibility for their children’s education.

It is in response to the anti-Christian approach to subject matter across the whole curriculum that private Christian schools, and home-schooling, are growing. Sadly, church ‘foundation’ schools appear in many instances to be just as secular as the state schools.

10. Education Act 1987

Abolished the use of the cane in state schools, after the European Court of Human Rights found against such punishments in cases of Campbel and Cosans (1982).

Thou shalt not kill. Exod 20:13.

The Hebrew word “ratsach” means murder. The requirement that the person, made in the image of God, must not be assaulted by acts of violence is surely contained in the words. Acts of violence against the person have failed to rise only once in the last 50 godless years. The Commandment itself, related to the covenant given to Noah when God instituted the nation state, has been broken in the UK by:

1. The Homicide Act 1957.

See: Gen 9:6; Numb 35:9-34; Deut 19:4-13, 24:16; Ezra 7:26; Ps 19:7-8; Eccl 8:11.

This Act retained the death penalty for people who killed with a firearm, or in the course of theft, or killed by whatever means a police officer or prison officer. It removed fear of the death penalty from every other murderer. By 1964 it was already seen as unworkable, which is hardly a surprise.

Section 2 of the Act created a category of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Scripture gives the state no right to diminish a man’s responsibility. Manslaughter in the Bible is accidental homicide and nothing else. According to Home Office figures, between 1965 and 1992, of the 76 homicides committed by those released after serving a sentence for homicide, 51 were committed by those whose first conviction was for manslaughter, and 25 by those previously convicted of murder.

The UK, both in this instance and in the case of homicides committed by those released into “Care in the Community,” has failed in its primary duty to its citizens: to safeguard innocent life.

2. The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965.

See: Exod 21:12-14; Lev 24:17-22; Deut 17:13, 19:21; Ps 119:41-48;126; Jer 16:12; Luke 23:39-43; Acts 25:11; Rom 13:4.

The death penalty reflects in the eyes of God the only possible way of making restitution for the offence of murder. Its abolition was an act of rebellion from the Law of God. Under the 1965 Homicide Act, what we today call “life imprisonment” means that the murderer is placed in a place of safety from vengeful relatives for 11 to 12 years. That is uncannily similar to the Biblical penalty for manslaughter.

The Biblical principles of restitution and capital punishment are written in the hearts of ordinary decent people. When the father of 7 year-old Mark Tildesley heard of the discovery of the body of his son’s paedophile murderer, Leslie Bailey, in his cell at Whitemoor prison on Friday 8th October 1993, he said: “Justice has been done. The Bible says ‘a life for a life.'”

3. The Suicide Act 1961.

See: Gen 2:7; Deut 30:15,19; 2 Sam 17:23; Ps 16:11, 34:18; Prov 22:2; Is 61:1; Matt 27:3-5, Luke 19:10.

God is the author of life. By removing the penalties from attempting suicide, the UK said that a man could be sovereign over his own life. It is a short step from there to the proposition that another might assist in the ending of that life. But looking at this from whatever angle, it should be a cause for grave disquiet that the suicide rate itself has risen in recent years, and is now the biggest cause of death amongst the young. This reflects the feeling of despair and nihilism in the community and is a sad reflection on life in Britain today.

4. The Abortion Act 1967.

See: Gen 4:10-11; Deut 27:25; Ps 10:8, 106:37-39; Prov 6:17. 28:16; Jer 2:34; Ezek 16:20-21,36-38; Micah 6:7; Matt 18:5,10,14.

It was a macabre trick of our legislators to remove the death penalty from the guilty, by the state, where it belongs, and impose it upon the innocent, in the family, where it does not. No-one who has studied either the Word of God or modern medicine can deny that a child in the womb is a fellow human being, made of blood, flesh and bone, known to God from conception and with a heart which begins to beat three weeks after that.

Our chart shows the mounting toll of the Abortion Act. In not even thirty years, the people of England , Scotland and Wales have to date murdered four and a half million children in what should be the safest place on earth. By the year 2,000, five million mothers will have been bereaved, deceived by politicians, exploited by abortionists and tricked into betraying their own children.

As Britain prepares to celebrate the millenium, on five million occasions since 1968 a physician or surgeon will have taken a reward to slay the innocent. Every pagan culture has practised child sacrifice; this is our version of it, and God hates it.

5. The Human Fertilisation Act 1990.

See: Exod 23:7; Ps 139:13-16; Prov 28:16; Eccl 11:5; Jer 1:5; Luke 1:41-44; Gal 1:15.

This was the Act which legalised the creation of embryonic human beings in the laboratory. They can be experimented upon or stored. 3,000 of them were recently destroyed. Some Christian MPs sought to use the Act to put an upper age limit on which babies could be killed in abortion. They suggested 16 weeks from conception. Yet even the innocent blood of a sixteen-week baby killed by abortion cries to heaven for vengeance. God humiliated their compromise by allowing amendments to be passed which now permit abortion on demand up to birth for unspecified handicap. The nature of the handicap need not be stated on the form the abortionist completes.

6. Airedale NHS Trust vs Bland, 1993.

See: Deut 1:17, 16:18-20; Ps 35:20, 37:32, 41:9; Prov 24:11-12; Is 5:20-23; Ezek 22:2-12; Mark 5:35-43.

The Courts decided that it was legal for doctors to remove the feeding tube from Tony Bland, diagnosed as being in a “persistent vegetative state,” and starve and dehydrate him to death. A number of cases have followed, but worse is to come. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society regards this Parliament as the one which is most likely to legalise euthanasia and “living wills”.

7. Firearms (Amendment) Acts 1988 and 1997.

See: Exod 22:2-3; 23:2; 2 Sam 10:12; Neh 4:13-16; Ps 144:1; Prov 3:30; Hab 1:4; Luke 22:35-38; Acts 5:29.

The 1997 Act bans the lawful holding of pistols by civilians in the UK . The use of weapons in self-defence is allowed by God, as set out in the Christian Voice Briefing Paper “Turn the other cheek, by order! (the use of firearms in self-defence.)” There has been a post-war trend in Britain for the state to arrogate to itself the maintenance of peace and order and to view with suspicion the individual who defends self, loved ones and property.
Both Acts were “knee-jerk” restrictions of lawful freedoms, one passed after the Hungerford massacre, the other after Dunblane. The chart showing firearms offences indicates that such measures do not restrict the availability of arms to those with criminal intent in the slightest.

Thou shalt not commit adultery. Exod 20:14

The seventh commandment carries with it the understanding that sexual activity is lawful only within marriage. Almighty God defines the acceptable boundaries further in Exodus 22, Leviticus 18 and 20, and Deuteronomy 22 and 24. It has been broken by the UK with:

1. The Sexual Offences Act 1967.

See: Gen 19:1-3; Lev 18:22, 20:13; Deut 23:17-18; Ps 12:8; Mark 6:11, 10:6-8; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:9-10; Jude 1:7; Rev 22:15.

Homosexual activity is a choice and the homosexual lifestyle is one from which men and women can walk away. Christian healing for the underlying pathologies is available, but has become the ministry which dare not speak its name. It has been driven underground by violent militant homosexuals who would deny anyone a way out of a lifestyle characterised by disease, degradation and death. (“The Sexual Dead-End,” Green S, Broadview Books, London , 1992)

The Sexual Offences Act 1967 legalised private homosexual acts between men over 21. It provided an age limit for activity which according to Almighty God is an abomination. Homosexual activity is different in kind from heterosexual adultery. It introduces the additional element of perverting God’s created order.

The 1967 Act also encouraged those who would promote homosexuality amongst the young and claim it to be on a par with heterosexual love and marriage.

2. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

See: Gen 18:12; Is 59:1-15; Matt 19:5; 1 Cor 7:2-5; Eph 5:21-33, 1 Pet 3:6.

This Act reduced the minimum age for homosexual activity to 18, redefined enforced sodomy as “rape,” in order to equate buggery with sexual intercourse, and legalised buggery on women. It also introduced an offence of “marital rape,” drafted by the Law Commission, unknown in the Law of God, and in conflict with the marriage service of the Book of Common Prayer, where the promises given by a man and woman to each other establish a binding consent to sexual intercourse. The right to petition the Court for the restoration of conjugal rights was abolished by the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 at the instigation of the Law Commission. (Law Commission Report 23, 1969)

3. The Divorce Reform Act 1969.

See: Deut 24:1-4; Jer 3:7-8; Matt 19:3-9; 1 Cor 7:15; Eph 5:28-29.

God likens idolatry to adultery throughout the prophets, so that we may be drawn to the parallel, and see the treachery of both. Deuteronomy 24 and the Gospels, most fully at Matthew 19, provide for civil divorce in the special case of adultery. We can make a case from the teaching of St Paul for cruelty and desertion as additional grounds.

However, the 1969 Act introduced one sole ground for divorce, that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Then it said that this could be proved in one of five ways. Three of these involved fault, that is adultery, desertion or unreasonable behaviour. The other two involved separation.

4. The Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970.

See: Gen 18:25; Deut 25:1; Ps 82:2-4; Ezek 5:6; Matt 5:17-20.

This Act dealt mainly with property, and with the factors to be taken into account in a divorce settlement. It did not deal with children, the custody of whom was still subject to the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925. One of the factors which Parliament wanted taken into account was the conduct of the parties. However, the Courts promptly subverted the will of Parliament, ruling in 1973 that conduct would only be taken into account if it was “gross and obvious.” In this way, the first principle of the justice of God, that the law must not treat the innocent and guilty alike, was overturned.

5. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

See: Gen 18:21; Deut 19:18; Ps 89:14; Jer 8:7-8; John 7:24.

This was a consolidation Act which brought together the 1969 and 1970 Acts. Furthermore, a “Special Procedure” was introduced and extended to all uncontested cases in 1977. Under the Special Procedure, which became known as “quickie divorce,” a District Judge relied upon what the petitioner said in an affidavit to decide whether the allegations in the petition were proved. The respondent was discouraged from contesting a divorce, so 99% of cases became “uncontested,” and unreasonable behaviour became the “catch-all” ground for divorce, especially as the Courts removed all objective definition of “unreasonable.”

6. Case Law and other legislation.

See: Exod 18:21-22; Ps 50:6; Prov 21:15; Is 10:1-4; Lam 3:36; Luke 18:2.

Since 1967, Parliament has passed some 34 Acts relating to matrimonial law. Many, if not all, have been brought in at the instigation of the Law Commission, an anti-Christian quango invented by Harold Wilson to “advise on changes to the law.” (Dan 7:25!) There has never been any single act bringing grounds for divorce, distribution of property and custody of children together.
With that being said, the Courts have since 1948 overwhelmingly given custody of children to wives, even in cases where she has been at fault.
Indeed, for a wife to living adulterously with another man has oftenm worked in her favour, as the judge can see a “ready-made” family and a new “father figure”.

7. The Child Support Act 1991.

See: Exod 23:7-9; 2 Chr 33:9-10, 34:19-33; Ps 94:20; Jer 22:3; Hos 4:6; John 9:39.

This Act set up the Child Support Agency and was a prime example of government devolving executive functions to agencies. The Agency was given draconian powers to lay down rules for the provision of financial support for children by their fathers. In trying to force feckless youths and philandering men to take responsibility for their offspring it had, no doubt, a laudable objective. However, in the case of divorced fathers, the level of support was calculated to a fixed formula which took no account of what had happened in the courts previously with regard to final settlements and “clean breaks.” It took no account of conduct which had led to the divorce in the first place, and in those cases where a wife had been at fault, it wrongly disregarded a man’s responsibility to any new family, and of his travel costs to see his children. In many cases, we understand that the Child Support Act has resulted in a man supporting financially his wife and her new lover.

8. The Family Law Act 1996.

See: Lev 19:15; Ps 94:7,16 Prov 29:2,4,7; Amos 7:11; John 12:43; Titus 1:16.

The Family Law Act 1996 instituted no-fault divorce on demand by statute, contrary to everything in Scripture on the subject of marriage and divorce and justice, contrary to the wishes of the public expressed in opinion polls, but in line with the academic lawyers of the Law Commission. Our charts show the increase of divorce in the post-war years. Divorce is certain to increase, because marriage was turned by the 1996 Act into something with scarcely more commitment than a love affair. The law no longer upholds the promises made by a man and woman to each other on their wedding day, and with that, legal marriage in the UK has ceased to exist. It should be a matter of shame to the church that two professing Christians, one a minister in the House of Lords, and the other in the House of Commons, drove this Act through.
In repsonse to the government’s White Paper “Looking to the Future”, the subject of civil marriage and divorce was addressed by Christian Voice in a Briefing Paper entitled “Staring into the Abyss” published in July 1995.

Many people today are deeply challenged by the capital penalties provided by Almighty God for adultery. Yet in the UK there are now no penalties of any kind, not even financial remedies in civil law, against adulterers and adulteresses. The UK has legalised adultery progressively and fully and the results speak for themselves.

Marriages overall have fallen from 459,000 in 1971 to 338,000 in 1994 as more couples cohabit. (Social Trends 1997 table 2.14) Of those, the number of marriages where bride and groom were both marrying for the first time declined from 369,000 (80%) in 1971 to 208,000 (62%) in 1994. (ST 1997 table 2.14) Around 175,000 marriages currently end in divorce in the UK every year, representing one divorce for every two marriages. Not long ago we were saying one in three. (ST 1995 2.14) Well over half-a-million men, women and children are involved in divorce every year. Britain has the highest divorce rate in Europe . It will become even worse.

Around 50% of men cannot expect to bring up their own children. Household size has declined dramatically as families have split up. An additional demand on housing will arise not just from the increased number of smaller homes needed to house people when families split up. Children are and will be increasingly leaving home after the introduction of new adult male mothers’ “boy-friends”. One of the many complex roots of homosexuality in males is an emotionally distant or absent father. Another, in both males and females, is sexual abuse. It is bvecoming well-established that homosexual men and other abusers seek out divorced and single mothers and move in to gain access to the children. The cycle is then repeated, or the child moves out, or both.

The increase in homelessness is almost totally due to the breakdown of the family. Many more teenage girls will get pregnant because they lack a father’s love at home. Others will want to escape a new, different and difficult home environment, and will believe that they and the baby will have a better chance on their own. They will end up married to the state.

The alienation and fragmentation of society resulting from the disintegration of God’s primary social institution in our land is as worrying from a sociological point of view as it is miserable for those involved.

9. The social indicators.

See: Gen 2:24, 34:31; Lev 19:29; Numb 31:16; Prov 7:1-27; Is 1:21; Hos 4:10-11; Mark 8:38; 1 Cor 6:15-16.

All the social indicators to do with sexual morality have seen dramatic post-war rises. Court proceedings for prostitution have risen four-fold in the last thirty years. Earlier we charted the figures for illegitimate births. THese were hovering around 45 births per 1000 all births during all of the past 100 years, with two pronounced peaks after each world war, and back to the plateau in the mid-fifties. From that point, illegitimate births, not even counting abortions, just the births, shot up seven times in just 40 years to 330 births per thousand all births in 1994.

A strikingly similar trend can be seen in the figures for sexually-transmitted diseases (STD’s). These also stayed steady at around 100,000 new referrals per year all the way through the century, with slight blips during and after the two world wars. And then, just the same as the illegitimacy rate, new referalls for STD’s started rising in 1955 and rose by a factor of seven to a plateau in the late 1980s. The rise is highest amongst the young, and is still rising, despite – or more probably because of – all the distribution of condoms.

There is only one conclusion to be drawn. This is a generation gone a-whoring. On present trends, it will get worse, as homosexuality is fully legalised by this Parliament and its values are more fully absorbed by the nation. The present generation will thereby be cursed by God to conduct an experiment to see what happens to a society which adopts a ‘modern’ value system based on godlessness, dishonesty, hedonism, individualism, consumerism, fatalism, indecency, degradation, sterility and lack of respect, restraint or concern with anything except me and now.

Thou shalt not steal. Exod 20:15

The breakdown in the family has resulted in rising crime. The prison population is filled with two main categories: Boys from unstable family backgrounds characterised by an absent father, and young men from criminal families. Only 20% of prison inmates do not come from those two groups. The Commandment itself has been broken in the UK by:

1. The criminal law system.

See: Exod 21:18-19, 22:1-15; Lev 6:4-5, 24:18-21; Deut 1:16-17, 25:1-3; 2 Sam 12:4-7; Luke 19:8; Rom 13:3-4; 1 Tim 2:2-4; 1 Pet 2:13-17.

The charts show the staggering increase in crime over the last fifty years. The absence of a godly criminal justice system has helped offenders considerably. According to the law of God, the thief must restore what he has stolen and make an addition, varying from 100% to 400% depending on circumstances. The United Kingdom has broken the eighth commandment by bringing in a criminal law system where the victim is not compensated by the villain, and where the criminal may be locked up instead at taxpayers’ expense but more usually gets away with his crimes.

In a Godly system, a man would work, in a secure place if necessary, and what he earns after his keep would go to his victim. If he worked hard, he might serve his sentence quickly. If he lazed about, he could be there a long time. The prison service cost the taxpayer £1.658 bn in 1995/6. (Blue Book 9.4 GTGA) The prison population was then about 57,000 inmates and rising. (Social Trends T9.1 & T9.28) Each prisoner costs the taxpayer just short of £30,000 to keep.

The infliction of prison or of a fine or even “community service” implies that the State or “the community” is the wronged party. Biblically such a view that a criminal may “pay his debt to society” is nonsense and helps the real victim not at all. The State is to dispense justice with mercy, but the granting of forgiveness is not ordained to it by God and hinders the preaching of the Gospel by the church.

In 1991, 26% of offenders, 66,300, sentenced for indictable offences in Magistrates’ Courts were ordered to pay compensation to their victims. The average amount ordered was £161. In the Crown court, 10,100 offenders, 12% of those sentenced, were ordered to pay compensation. The average amount was #882. There is not much to deter a criminal from offending.

2. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board 1964.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for Great Britain was set up by Act of Parliament in 1962 to provide state compensation to the victims of violence. It received 61,400 applications in 1991/2, up from 26,500 in 1981/2. It made 39,250 awards, as against 17,350 ten years previously.

The “Criminal Injuries Compensation Board” is not a just substitute for personal restitution, since it incorporates the totalitarian idea that the State can take upon itself the mis-deeds of the criminal. From its generosity the state grants compensation to the victim. God has granted such a role of vicarious suffering only to Christ, (Is 53:5, 1 Pet 2:24) not to the state!

3. The Criminal Justice Act 1948

This Act was passed at a time of falling crime rates, and abolished both penal servitude & corporal punishment. Since then, as the charts show, crime rates in every category have risen by as much as 40 times. Scarcely a week goes by without the sad picture of another old lady or old man staring out of the local newspaper through bewildered and humiliated eyes set in a bruised and battered face. For all the abolition of capital and corporal punishment, introduction of community service orders and probation, our society is much less civilised than it was.

In Deuteronomy Chapter 25 we find that corporal punishment is acceptable to God, if the judges so decree it. There is a limit to the number of strokes to prevent the punishment from being degrading. The use of corporal punishment is upheld in no uncertain terms by Christ himself at Luke 12:47,48.

In 1900 the police in England and Wales recorded fewer than three crimes for every 1000 people. By the 1980s it was fifty for every thousand. Today it is twice as many, one for every ten. (Such figures are always lower in Scotland and Northern Ireland , but the trend is the same.) The British Crime Survey actually suggests one crime for every three persons. So this generation has gone a-thieving as well. But it is not only ordinary folk who steal.

4. Inflation of the money supply.

See: Exod 38:24-26; Lev 19:36, 27:3,25; Deut 25:13-16; Prov 20:10,23; Ezek 45:10; Mic 6:11; Jas 5:1-3.

Governments can steal. The Government steals when it prints the money that fuels inflation. Inflation is a tax on savings and robs those who save. Currency is a medium of exchange, and a measure of value, but money is by definition also a store of value. Plainly, our notes and coin are no longer “money” but mere “currency”. Because of inflation, one would need #1000 to buy today what #100 would have bought thirty years ago.

5. Suspension of the Gold Standard.

See: Gen 23:16; Exod 30:13, 32:1-4,8,20; Numb 3:47,50, 7:13,19,25,etc; 1 Kgs 12:28-33; 2 Kgs 12:13-16; 2 Chr 24:14; Prov 16:11; Dan 3:1-18,28.

Before 1914, gold sovereigns circulated and Bank of England notes were exchangeable for them on demand. Before that, we had a sterling silver standard. With the start of the First World War, gold was withdrawn. The Gold Standard was restored in 1925 at the pre-war parity of £3 17s 9d per ounce but was suspended in 1931, when the Gold Standard was finally abandoned.

There are numerous examples in scripture of the people of God using silver and gold as a medium of exchange, as an indication of worth and as a store of value, the three requirements of a sound money system. It is important to recognise that basing a money system on something of intrinsic value such as precious metal is not Babylonian idolatry. Nebuchadnezzar built a gold statue of himself and required it to be worshipped. Israel also went away from God and worshipped golden images of calves. That does not mean that God was wrong to require his people to weigh precious metal accurately when trading and to maintain an accurate silver shekel as a standard in the sanctuary.

6. Fractional reserve banking.

See: Lev 25:37; Deut 23:19; Prov 11:1, 28:8; Is 1:22-26; Jer 6:30; Ezek 22:18-19.

There is over £25 billion of notes and coin in circulation outside the Bank of England, and only £33.9 billion worth of gold in the reserves. Such a practice is known as fractional reserve banking. The situation is complicated by one’s definition of money (we have cited “M0”) and by what constitutes the Bank’s and the state’s assets. The bank only holds in reserve a fraction – 15% – of what is in circulation, confident that we will not all turn up on the same day. The note and coin minted by the Bank is a “fiduciary issue” which means that the reason we can trust it is because we trust it. Even leaving aside the question of whether or not charging interest is usurious, our government is presiding over a dishonest banking system.

Of course we will not receive any money whenever we turn up, because the notes are no longer convertible and the promise “to pay the bearer on demand” on our bank-notes cannot be kept. Our notes are worthless and our “Pound Coins” are mere tokens. We have seen that before 1914, Bank of England notes were exchangeable for gold sovereigns on demand. At the time of writing, with a relatively strong pound, it would take around 5 “Ten Pound” notes today to buy a gold sovereign’s worth of gold, and 43 “One Pound” coins to buy one pound of sterling silver, not counting VAT.

7. Introduction of Value Added Tax by Finance Act 1972.

Precious metal acts as a store of value, but the government has now put VAT on it. Value Added Tax was imposed as a result of our membership of the EEC, but we had “purchase tax” and various customs duties before that. VAT requires businessmen to be tax collectors, but refuses to pay them for the time involved. Like all taxes on expenditure, VAT is dishonest, disguising the real cost of government. Even people who should not pay tax at all cannot avoid paying VAT.

Indirect taxes hit the poorest most. They account for 16% of disposable income for the wealthiest fifth of the population, but 31% of disposable income for the poorest fifth. (ST 1995 5.15)

8. Inheritance Tax, wealth and property taxes.

See: Prov 13:22, 19:14; Ezek 46:18; Mic 2:1-2.

Even all the above does not exhaust the possibilities of theft by Government. Inheritance Tax is a broad-daylight piece of state thieving. The state should not impose itself between parent and child and deprive children of any part of their inheritance. Their fathers have worked for and paid income tax on the money already. Why does the state think it can come back and have another slice? The same applies to wealth taxes and property taxes.

9. Income tax at confiscatory levels.

See: Gen 47:24; Exod 30:11-16, 38:26; Lev 27:30; Deut 14:22-29; 1 Kgs 12:14-19; Ezek 45:9; Matt 22:17-21; Luke 3:13; Rom 13:6.

Scripture lends the blessing of God to two forms of taxation, a form of poll tax, and a tax on increase. So income tax is Biblical, but not at confiscatory levels. On the basis that the tithe system requires 10% of income to be put to specific religious purposes of God, the state should take less than that to carry out its own God-ordained duties. The maximum taxation in the Bible is the 20% levied in Egypt at a time of national crisis, and what appears to be a similar levy in the time of king Solomon. It may be interesting to note that after Solomon died, there was a revolt on this very issue, and the principal tax-collector was stoned to death.

The proportion of Net National Product taken by our government rose above 50% at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, and then began to fall. However, it has continued to fall towards 43% in the 1990s only because of an astronomical Public Sector Borrowing Requirement since 1991.

If the Government only spent what it could justly raise in taxation it would do much less, but much better, than it does today. It would be more Godly, too.

10. Leasehold Reform Act 1993,

This Act compels the landlord of a block of flats let on long leases to give the lessees first choice if he decides to sell. It is not up to the state to tell anyone to whom he must sell.

11. Confiscation of property of innocent after divorce.

See: Deut 8:19; 2 Chr 15:3-7; Ps 1:5-6; Prov 14:34; Jer 8:9-10; Ezek 22:27-31; Mal 2:17.

So much of the sin of Britain today is intertwined, that it is impossible to point to any one “issue” as that which, if corrected, would put everything else right. In the case of divorce settlements, the state acquiesces whilst the guilty take the property of the innocent. A failure to administer the seventh commandment allows a breach of the eighth through disregard of the ninth.

12. Abolition of the Truck Acts by the Wages Act 1986

See: Lev 19:13; Deut 24:14-15, 25:4; Ps 33:5; Jer 22:13; Mal 3:5; Matt 20:1-15; Luke 10:7; Col 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim 5:18; Jas 5:4.

The Truck Acts were a series of Acts of Parliament passed between 1831 and 1940. They insisted in the words of the 1831 Act that, “In all contracts … for the hiring of any artificer … the wages of such artificer shall be made payable in the current coin of this realm only and not otherwise.” Any other form of contract was “illegal, null and void.” “Coin” could include “note” and the Truck Acts were amended quite reasonably by the Payment of Wages Act 1960 which allowed payment by cheque or by electronic means into a bank account.

The Truck Acts were passed to protect workers from unscrupulous employers who paid in “truck,” that is, in goods or tokens redeemable only in the company store. We do not yet know what new abuses have arisen or will arise from their abolition, but the heart of wicked man will find a way. Any form of oppression of the hired man is a crime in the eyes of God, whilst keeping back his wages cries to heaven. It was the Law Commission which proposed the abolition of the Truck Acts, and the unions were not able in 1986 to resist this section (S11) of the Wages Act.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Exod 20:16

See also: Exod 23:1; Lev 19:11; Ps 27:12, 35:11; Mark 14:56-60.

The scriptures state in connection with this commandment, some basic principles:

Firstly, no-one shall be convicted on the evidence of only one witness. Two or three witnesses are required to establish a conviction. God’s eternal standard is especially important in capital offences, but it applies to all. See: Numb 35:30; Deut 17:06; Matt 18:16; John 8:17-18; 2 Cor 13:1; 1 Tim 5:19; Heb 10:28.

Secondly, perjury is punishable by the same punishment as would have been inflicted upon the innocent man were he to have been found guilty. The witnesses bear the primary responsibility of conviction. See: Deut 17:07, 19:15-20, 1 Kgs 21:13; Est 7:10.

Thirdly, there is to be no partiality in judgment. The judge is neither to favour the rich man, nor the poor man. See: Deut 10:17, 16:19; Prov 24:23; Matt 22:16; Rom 2:11.

Fourthly, the witnesses must come with clean hands. They must not be implicated in similar crime themselves, nor may they be partial. This principle probably rules evidence gained through entrapment. See: Matt 7:2; John 8:7; Rom 2:1,21-22.

Fifthly, every accused must face his accusers and defend himself if he so wishes. See Deut 17:8; Prov 18:17; Matt 26:62-63; John 7:51.

Sixthly, a confession may stand uncorroborated, but only if it is freely given in Court. See: 2 Sam 1:10,16; Job 15:6, Matt 12:37; Luke 19;22, 22:71.

The ninth commandment has been broken in the law of the UK by:

1. Conviction in criminal cases “beyond reasonable doubt”,

All that is necessary for a conviction today in any criminal case is that the court be satisfied “beyond reasonable doubt.” But all this means is that one witness was more plausible than another. It is not a just system at all, and has resulted in unjust convictions. The Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Maguires and many others, not nearly so famous, have in recent years been convicted on confessions alone, or forensic evidence alone, or police evidence alone, in contravention of the word of God.

In 1995, a lorry driver convicted of killing his disabled baby step-daughter on flawed forensic evidence from a Home Office pathologist alone was able to prove his innocence, three years after his conviction and imprisonment. (Times 30/03/95)

In another case, a father accused of sexually assaulting his daughter after she claimed to recall incidents from her childhood was freed by a court when the prosecution admitted that the memories were fictitious and had emerged during psychiatric counselling. The prosecution had no other evidence at all. The daughter was mentally disturbed and prone to sexual fantasies. The man had to wait 17 months before the case came to court and he was exonerated. With Biblical standards of evidence understood all round he would never have been arrested. (Times 29/03/95)

Let it be clear that there could be no re-introduction of the death penalty without sound conviction according to the Law of God. God hates the conviction of the innocent just as much as the acquittal of the guilty. (Ps 11:5,7; Prov 6:16-19; Is 3:10-11) There is a stark contrast here with present liberal judicial practice. By following the principles set out by Almighty God, fewer people would be convicted of capital crimes, but those who were would face the ultimate penalty.

2. Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Section 34 of this Act abolished the age-old principle that the unsworn evidence of a child of tender years must be corroborated by some other evidence.

3. Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994.

This Act, as well as giving homosexual men legal access to teenagers, abolished the last but one remaining need in English law for corroborating evidence to establish guilt. (The one still remaining is in the case of perjury.)

At the prompting of the Law Commission, the requirement in English Law for corroborating evidence in the case of sexual offences was swept away. In this area, the scope for malicious accusation is very high. It has already resulted in injustice, with a man released from prison in 1995 after serving part of a sentence for rape. His alleged victim wrote to him and apologised for making it all up.

A more newsworthy case was that of Mr Owen Oyston. Many people will regard him as a philanderer who got what was coming to him, but the fact remains that his enemies had to wait for the law to be changed before a case could be brought against him; without corroborating evidence, his seduction of impressionable young women could never have been established as “rape.” Indeed, the horrendous crime of rape – a capital offence in the eyes of God – is devalued by such cases.

The law was changed to secure more convictions, but, aside from cases like that of Mr Oyston, the opposite seems to have happened. The conviction rate for rape has slumped to 10% of cases brought. The crown prosecutors are apparently putting cases before the court on the flimsy evidence which the law now permits only to see juries, perhaps the last repository of common sense, throwing them out. Justice in such a sloppy system is not being well do done to anyone. What a stark contrast with the ways of God.

4. Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, Criminal Justice Act 1988 S158

The 1976 Act gave both the accuser and the defendant in rape cases anonymity. Section 158 of the 1988 Act abolished the anonymity of defendants. In a number of recent cases, lying women have hidden behind the cloak of anonymity to make false accusations, whilst those they accuse have endured full publicity. Nor have the false accusers been subsequently charged with perjury. Feminist presumption is that all men are born sinful, but all women virtuous. The law should show no such partiality.

5. Family Law Act 1996.

The Family Law Act now allows for none of what the Bible calls “diligent inquisition”. It may be more honest to throw in the towel rather than allow the perjury that went on under the divorce “special procedure,” but the cause of justice is hardly well served. If we accept the principle that if it is difficult to establish the truth we should not bother, our whole system of justice would collapse.

The Family Homes and Domestic Violence provisions of this Act come into force in October 1997. Under these, a man may be thrown out of his home on the unsubstantiated word of the woman with whom he lives that she fears violence. There need have been no actual violence at all. The court is obliged under the Act to attach a power of arrest to its order.

6. Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949.

It may well have been the case that before state legal aid, the poor had less than adequate access to the law, but the “poverty trap” for legal aid is also against the principle of equal access. The rich can afford to be represented, the poor can have legal aid, but those in the middle can neither afford representation nor get legal aid, and are disadvantaged in the court. That state of affairs is plainly partial, and unjust.

7. Road Traffic Act 1991.

This Act abolished “due process” in law from the administration of parking offences. “Parking Committees” were set up by the Act to cover London at first, with the intention of covering the whole country eventually. “Adjudicators” are constrained by the Act to find for the defendant “on appeal” only in certain tightly-drawn sets of circumstances, in which reasonableness does not figure.

Even where a defendant’s case relies on one of those defined circumstances, he can find the “adjudicator” acting both as prosecuting counsel for the local authority and as judge in the cause. It is surprising that a test case has not yet been taken to the European Court of Human Rights.

Section 40 of the same Act allowed road traffic authorities to set up cameras to trap motorists committing traffic offences. It can be argued that these are an infringement of civil liberty, to which the reply would be that their presence saves lives. What is undeniable is that the vast majority of notices erected along the highway which depict a camera, or warn of “police enforcement cameras,” bear false witness. The highly expensive camera in many cases is not there at all. It may be that no camera box is there, or just an empty box, or just the flashing light. The whole of the law is diminished when, by law, the state does evil hoping that good may come. (Rom 3:8)

8. Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1997

This Act of Parliament enables the police to withhold evidence they have gathered which might be useful to the defence, and at the same time to demand to see all defence evidence in advance. Such a thing is a monstrous perversion of the course of justice. This Act has completely lost touch with Godly princioples of justice and investigation.

9. The Human Fertilisation Act 1990

Allowed birth certificates falsely to identify as parents people who are not the child’s natural parents at all.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. Exod 20:17

See also: Gen 2:15, 3:17-19; Job 42:12; Ps 37:16; Prov 5:15-19, 13:11, 15:27, 20:21, 22:4, 28:6; Eccl 9:9; Luke 3:14.

The Biblical attitude to wealth and property is that these are good things to be gained by hard work and the blessing of God and that they are to be used in the service of others. The state is limited in what it can lawfully do. It cannot change people’s hearts and minds, as it tried to with the Race Relations Act 1976. But it should not provide an occasion for sin either. This Commandment has been broken by the United Kingdom with:

1. A string of enactments permitting gambling including:

The Betting and Lotteries Act 1934,
Repeal of Lotteries Acts in 1953,
The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, and
The National Lottery Act 1994,

The 1934, 1953 and 1963 Acts progressively permitted gaming and betting, but the 1994 Act instituted a state national lottery. The lottery and its operation and oversight have been dogged by allegations of impropriety, and it has attracted characters like “Mystic Meg” and encouraged a heady mixture of occultism and instant wealth. However, the National Lottery is also a deceitful form of taxation, which pays out only 50% of what is placed and robs the public of the other 50% on every draw. It bears most heavily on the poor, who have most to lose.

The money which enters the public domain after the Lottery operator has taken his cut is distributed by a Board or Boards of the great and good. Lottery money has been a windfall for groups who could have been expected to raise their own money. Additionally, some of this public money has reached organisations of homosexuals, prostitutes and trans-sexuals campaigning against Christian morality. The Government now intends to use lottery money to top up the general exchequer. It had to come.

2. The Obscene Publications Act 1959 as amended by
the Obscene Publications Amendment Act 1977 and
the Broadcasting Act 1990.

The Obscene Publications Act 1959 claims to be:

“An Act to amend the law relating to the publication of obscene matter; to provide for the protection of literature; and to strengthen the law concerning pornography.” It did amend the law, it certainly protected literature, but it was dishonest to claim to strengthen the law concerning pornography.

The Obscene Publications Act deliberately made it difficult to convict pornographers. To secure a conviction, the publication must deprave or corrupt “taken as a whole” and there is a defence if its publication can be argued to be in the “public good” or “educational.”

An unsigned document entitled “Praying for Government” published in 1987 observed that this Act: “Released a flood of obscene literature into the nation, polluting marriage and family life, opening the floodgates onto a vast and profitable trade in pornographic literature”

The Obscene Publications Amendment Act 1977 extended the protection given to pornographers by excluding cinema from the obscenity tests in Criminal and Common Law, whilst the Broadcasting Act 1990 did the same for television.

Today it is impossible for a jury to convict in the case of any material which does not involve paedophilia or homosexuality coupled with bestiality or sadism. The Porn Squad at Scotland Yard was in despair of stemming the tide of filth, but at least it tried, until it was abolished by the last Conservative Government.

In common with other unrighteous legislation, the wicked are protected by the obscenity acts and the innocent exposed to perversion and violence. There is now overwhelming evidence linking crimes of a perverted or violent nature with pornographic material found in the perpetrator’s home. Our chart shows the increase in rapes notified to the police from around 100 per year during the thirties, 300-350 in the fifties to more than 5,000 today, in England and Wales alone.

We noted earlier the low level of conviction in these cases and the change in the law in 1994 which now allows cases of rape to be brought by the prosecutor with no corroborating evidence. Nevertheless, the two most recent years follow a continuous post-war upward trend which correlates with every other social indicator.

“The permissive society is the civilised society” said Roy, now Lord Jenkins at the height of the sixties. What does the word of God say?

‘Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!’ Isa. 5:20
‘Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!’ Isa. 5:21
‘Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink.’ Isa. 5:22
‘Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!’ Isa. 5:23

The charts of national indicators demonstrate that the passing of unrighteous law in our land has had a great and ill effect on human behaviour. The evidence of social trends agrees with scripture (Gen 6:12; Eccl 8:11; Jer 17:9-10; Ezek 20:24-26; 1 Tim 1:9) that the wickedness of the unredeemed human heart can only be restrained by a civil law-system deriving from God. The post-war attempt to prove otherwise has demonstrably failed.

We have legislated lawlessness since the War, and lawlessness is what we now have. Her Majesty’s Governments, irrespective of which political party has been in power, have sown the wind of disobedience to God, and our nation is beginning to reap the whirlwind of judgment. To answer the question we posed at the start, the reign of our Queen would certainly be viewed by the writers of Kings and Chronicles as one in which the monarch allowed the nation to drift into apostasy and rebellion from God.

It is not enough to carry out flawlessly one’s ceremonial duties. Her Majesty has indeed a bad bargain, in which she has made certain promises to her people and to Almighty God, whilst the discharge of those promises was ever in the hands of powerful and ambitious men.

She may well have been ill-advised, or “deceived in her grants”, but hers is the responsibility for the wickedness which has been enacted in her name. Unless she and her ministers and people quickly repent, her nation will be broken up before her eyes, its Christian heritage and constitution destroyed, whilst the remains will be stripped from her and given over to her enemies. They will rule both her and her erstwhile subjects with the contempt which only an elite can feel for their inferiors.

Even if we come to our senses today, it will be a hard and narrow road back to prosperity and contentment under God. Since the end of the Second World War, average earnings have risen 2 1/2 times in real terms. “While the value of the pound has shrunk 20 times since 1947, earnings for the average male manual worker have risen 50-fold, leaving him 2 1/2 times better off.” (Times 29/8/97)

The reality is that the effects of the nation’s corporate sin have eaten up all that increase. We might be materially better off than at any time in our history, but we are no happier. We search after spiritual quick fixes, but we are as careless towards Him wo alone can heal and save as were the returning exiles of Judah, whom the prophet Haggai observed were earning wages only ‘to put it into a bag with holes.’ (Hag 1:6) A time will come, and some of the national statistics show it may be already here, when we cannot keep up with our profligacy. The judgment is already falling.

The United Kingdom is not alone in this; most of the developed world is moving steadily to destruction. The lessons from anthropology agree with the Bible that no civilisation which has allowed its family base to disintegrate, has become obsessed with sexual gratification and perversion and which has killed its own children has ever survived. Every single one has slid down the rubbish-chute of history.

Our prayer is that the United Kingdom will repent of her law-breaking, seek God, return to Him as before and stand aside from the rush of the international Gadarene swine. Again, realism is required; there are powerful financial and spiritual vested interests who believe they stand to gain much from our national destruction and global unification. But they are as nothing beside God, who even now, calls us to repent and enjoy His blessing. Without national repentance, our reading of Scripture is that God will let this nation go her own way:

And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; Lev. 26:27-28

God has granted this nation deliverance in the past, through the actions of far-sighted, God-fearing men; He has granted the church revival, through the actions of Godly men of prayer and courage. We pray that God will heal our backsliding (Hos 14:4) by raising up those men and a remnant who will stand with them for Christ and call our nation to repentance.

Repentance and trusting in God can be expected to bring Godly rulers of our nation to the point where they would lead the nation to confess, with Josiah, concerning the Book of the Law:

Great is the wrath of the LORD that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the LORD, to do after all that is written in this book. 2 Chr. 34:21

Repentance will, obviously, lead to repeal of all unrighteous legislation. To allow that to happen, and to demonstrate our faith and trust in God alone, repentance would also involve withdrawal from the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights, and all agencies of the United Nations.

By doing these things, we should demonstrate to the world our national dependence upon God, and would be a true shining light of Christian witness. For its part, the church would pray with conviction for Christ’s Church militant in words similar to these from the Book of Common Prayer:

“We beseech thee also to save and defend all Christian Kings, Princes, and Governors; and specially thy servant ELIZABETH our Queen, that under her we may be godly and quietly governed: And grant unto her whole Council, and to all that are put in authority under her, that they may truly and indifferently minister justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue.”

Genuine revival in the church will surely follow as a gift from God, with an awakening in the nation at large. That is what scripture promises, and that is the history of revival. But do we actually want freedom and blessing under God and His laws, or are we content with slavery and misery under the wicked and theirs?

And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, ‘How long halt ye between two opinions? If the LORD be God, follow Him, but if Baal, follow him.’ And the people answered him not a word. 1 Kgs 18:21

And are we prepared, as church and nation, and as rulers and ruled, to accept the four conditions which God lays down in His word before he will pour out His blessing, His forgiveness, and His healing? As the months unfold, we shall see:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. 2 Chr. 7:14

So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron ; and king David made a league with them in Hebron before the LORD; and they anointed David king over Israel. 2 Samuel 5:3

And Jehoiada made a covenant between the LORD and the king and the people, that they should be the LORD’s people; between the king also and the people. 2 Kings 11:19

Young Christians “not shining lights”
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Matt 5:16
“A quarter of teenagers who go to church have taken part in sexual activity by the time they are 15. Fifteen per cent have had full intercourse, a Christian research group reported. One churchgoer in eight aged 16 has used illegal drugs, more than a third had been drunk and more than half had watched an 18-rated film by the age of 15” Daily Mail 09/97.

Britain ‘is car crime black spot of Europe’
Motorists in Britain are twice as likely to have their cars stolen as anyone else in Europe , according to a survey published in April 1997.
An average of 22 cars were stolen per 1,000 on British roads in 1995, twice as many as in the second worst European country, France.
“The UK remains the car-crime black spot of Europe ,” said Graham Johnston, of insurers Eagle Star, which commisioned the survey.
England and Wales were the worst areas, with almost 23 thefts per 1,000. In Scotland the figuse was 15.5 and in Northern Ireland it was 14.6. This compared with just 1.5 cars stolen per 1,000 in Austria , and 3 per 1,000 in Switzerland . (Daily Telegraph 3/4/97)

One in five arrested has used heroin
In the 1950s there were fewer than 1,000 registered addicts; now there are 25 times that number. (Sunday Telegraph 2/2/97) One in five people arrested by police has been using heroin, according to Home Office research to be published later this year. A Home Office official said £1 billion-worth of property was stolen each year by heroin addicts. (ibid 18/5/97)

Assault on shop staff every minute
Violent attacks on shop staff rose last year and crime cost retailers nearly £1.9 billion in losses and security measures, an equivalent of £85 per household, according to a new survey.

Physical attacks showed an increase to what the British Retail Consortium described as “appallingly high levels”.
Every minute of a typical shopping day, a shop staff member is assaulted or intimidated with small, independent shops more likely to be targetted.

More than 9,000 staff were physically assaulted, with another 167,000 threatened with violence. Off-licenses, chemists and petrol stations were the worst hit.There was a five per cent increase in the number of victims of physical violence.
Though total losses, at £1.42 billion, were slightly down on the previous year’s total of £1.5 billion, shops were forced to spend £450 million on crime prevention. (Daily Telegraph 29/1/97)

Golden weddings on the wane
Over 400,000 couples in England and Wales married in 1947 and 28 per cent (around 112,000) are celebrating their golden wedding anniversary this year according to figures prepared by the Office for National Statistics.

In the 1990s fewer than 300,000 couples marry each year and only 11 per cent (around 33,000) are expected to reach their golden wedding.

These are among a number of statistics which show how much marriage has changed since the wedding of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh in 1947. Other facts are:

  • of those married in 1947, 10 per cent have divorced, while of those who marry in the 1990s, 10 per cent will divorce within the first five years, nearly 25 per cent by 10 years and 41 per cent by 50 years;
  •  in 1947 over 85 per cent of men and women were marrying for the first time, but in the 1990s just 71 per cent are marrying for the first time;
  •  in 1947 the most common age for women to marry was 21 (HM the Queen was 21) and for men it was 23 (HRH the Duke of Edinburgh was 25). (ONS News Release 14/7/97) In the 1990s couples are marrying when they are older. In 1994, the average age of a bachelor at marriage was 28.5. Spinsters married at 26.5. (Times 25/7/97)

Co-habitation ‘now the norm’
A Government report on the state of the family says that co-habitation before marriage is now the norm and there has been a “dramatic rise” in the number of people living by themselves.

It says: “In one generation the numbers marrying have halved and the numbers divorcing have trebled while the proportion of children born outside marriage has quadrupled.”

The report, Social Focus on Families, by the Office for National Statistics, says there has been a “dramatic increase” in the proportions of couples who co-habit before marrying from four per cent in 1966 to 68 per cent in 1993. (Daily Telegraph 7/8/97)

Note: A printed booklet is also available from Christian Voice which includes a considerable number of graphs. Price £4.95 incl. p&p from Christian Voice. Click here to order.

Chronological index of measures considered in the text:

5.1     Tax system which penalises marriage
5.2     State Social Security
5.7     Deficit budgeting
5.9     Sex education & state education in general
7.6     Matrimonial Case Law
8.1     The criminal law system
8.4     Inflation of the money supply
8.6     Fractional reserve banking
8.8     Inheritance Tax, wealth and property taxes
8.9     Income tax at confiscatory levels
8.11   Confiscation of property of innocent after divorce
9.1     Conviction in criminal cases “beyond reasonable doubt”
7.9     Social indicators of sexual immorality
8.5     Suspension of Gold Standard in 1931
10.1   Betting and Lotteries Act 1934
1.1     Ratification of Charter of the United Nations 1945
1.2     Adoption of Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
9.6     Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949
1.3     Acceptance of European Convention on Human Rights 1950
4.1     Shops Act 1950
2.5     Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951
10.2   Repeal of Lotteries Acts in 1953
6.1     Homicide Act 1957
4.2     Repeal in 1958 of Sunday Observance Act 1625
10.5   Obscene Publications Act 1959
6.3     Suicide Act 1961
10.3   Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963
8.2     Criminal Injuries Compensation Board 1964
6.2     Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965
1.4     Right of individual petition to Commission in 1966
6.4     Abortion Act 1967
7.1     Sexual Offences Act 1967
3.1     Theatres Act 1968
7.3     Divorce Reform Act 1969
5.8     Equal Pay Act 1970
7.4     Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970
8.7     Finance Act 1972
7.5     Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
2.1     European Communities Act 1972
2.6     Sunningdale Agreement 1973
5.8     Sex Discrimination Act 1975
9.4     Sexual Offences Amendment Act 1976
10.6   Obscene Publications Amendment Act 1977
2.6     Hillsborough Agreement 1985
5.3     Housing Act 1985
2.2     E.C.(Amendment) Act 1986
5.8     Sex Discrimination Act 1986
8.12   Abolition of the Truck Acts by the Wages Act 1986
5.4     Family Law Reform Act 1987
5.10   Education Act 1987
6.7     Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988
9.2     Criminal Justice Act 1988 S34
9.4     Criminal Justice Act 1988 S158
5.5     Children Act 1989
3.2     Broadcasting Act 1990
10.7    Broadcasting Act 1990
5.6     United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child 1990
6.5     Human Fertilisation Act 1990
7.7     Child Support Act 1991
9.7     Road Traffic Act 1991
6.6     Bland Case (Airedale NHS Trust vs Bland 1993
2.3     E.C.(Amendment) Act 1993
4.3     Sunday Trading Act 1993
8.10   Leasehold Reform Act 1993
7.2     Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
9.3     Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
10.4   National Lottery Act 1994
7.8     Family Law Act 1996
9.5     Family Law Act 1996
2.4     Treaty of Amsterdam 1997
6.7     Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997
9.8     Criminal Justice and Investigation Act 1997




3 pings

  1. Rebecca

    I am a Muslim and I would be very happy to live adhering to the 10 commandments. As a Christian country a Muslim would respect the honour and integrity of any laws that support the worship of The One God, and the intention to create a society based on Gods divine laws that promote peace, good manners and selfless acts of kindness with a genuine good intention towards our society.
    I pray that Muslims, Christians and Jews who worship the same God can work together to create a society that is guided by the sacred and divine laws of God Most High, May we all be honoured to be servants of such a High and Noble Cause :Thy Will will be done on earth. Ameen.

    1. dawie

      Christians, Jews and Muslims do not serve the same God, the Trinity.

  1. Stephen Green Supports Rape Within Marriage | West Cumbria Skeptic

    […] rape within marriage in his original statement.  I’m posting this statement from the Christian Voice website for clarity of their/his […]

  2. #NotAllChristians? | Kittyy Fierce

    […] live at all. I also see them saying women don’t have the right to birth control, abortion or to refuse their husbands sex. The church is dedicated to persecuting queers and […]

Leave a Reply