Despite painstaking research, none of Tesco’s ‘Fresh and Easy’ stores in the USA made a profit, resulting in a £1.2bn write-down.
The Financial Times reports: ‘The charges cut Tesco’s statutory pre-tax profit from £4bn to £1.96bn in the year to February.
Even before the charges, Tesco’s underlying profit fell 14.5 per cent to £3.55bn – the first annual profit fall in 20 years – as it counted the cost of the problems in the UK, which prompted its first profit warning in decades in January 2012.’
Alone of the ‘big four’ it recorded a disastrous Christmas 2011, with its share price down 20% at one point, as decent people boycotted the store and its ‘Big Price Drop’ failed to woo shoppers.
They sacked their UK operations CEO, and then had to contend with an infestation of mice in their flagship Tesco Metro in Bedford Street in London’s Covent Garden.
A Tesco manageress in Gravesend thought it would be a good idea to report a solitary Christian protestor handing out leaflets outside her store to the police. Tesco were humiliated when Raj Bhachoo was completely exonerated by Dartford Magistrates in March 2012.
What else could go wrong for Tesco and its investors? Watching the company had already become for many of them like watching a slow-motion car crash. Talking of which, Tesco’s online second-hand car sales venture promptly ran out of petrol and closed in April 2012.
Tesco now has a whole section in its online book store headed Financial Crises and Disasters. At the last look-up it was headed by ‘A Colossal Failure of Common Sense’ by Larry S. McDonald and Patrick Robinson.
A colossal failure of common sense might be what drove Tesco bosses to give in to the demands of their in-store homosexual lobby group headed by Nick Lansley, Head of Research and Development at Tesco.com, a militant homosexual atheist activist who once videoed himself reading James Kirkup’s blasphemous poem ‘The Love That Dares to Speak its Name’.
But all the ill-fated decisions Tesco bosses have made over the last few years are now coming home to roost.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
The Government has handed atheists a Darwin Day present by promising to indoctrinate primary school children with evolutionism.
Education Secretary of State Rt Hon Michael Gove MP has decided to force primary schools in England to teach evolutionary theory. The announcement was made as part of last week’s English Baccalaureate climb-down statement.
However, the decision raises questions about issues of conscience for primary school teachers, who cover more subjects than their secondary colleagues and cannot simply keep out of the biology department.
Richard Dawkins – not as nice as he looks.
Shortly after being appointed two-and-a-half years ago Michael Gove bowed to pressure from evolutionary biologists including Richard Dawkins and banned from Secondary School biology classes any talk of a possibility that organisms show signs of having been designed. If last week’s statement is followed through, it will be the first time evolution has been taught as a subject in primary schools.
The decision can be seen as an act of desperation by secularists, who are worried that the holes in Darwin’s theory of evolution are becoming increasingly visible and talked-about, not least in the scientific community.
Charles Darwin, 1809 – 1882. Published ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’ on 24th November 1859.
Sadly, a link on the BHA website to ‘answers to 21 anti-evolutionary questions and arguments’ sends the visitor to the schools campaigning page instead and a google search reveals no such document.
Interestingly, there are webpages elsewhere claiming to answer creationist’s questions, but they fail to do so. Here is one attempt; I love the admission that evolution needs time – lots and lots of time.
Yeast reproduces every 15 minutes. Over the course of a day that is almost 100 generations, 35,000 generations in a year. In human terms that amounts to 876,000 years, taking 25 years for a generation, or over a million years if you ascribe 30 years for a generation.
The Carlsberg Brewery have been using the same yeast for 130 years, during which time it has gone through over 4-and-a-half million generations.
The yeast Saccharomyces carlsbergensis is named after the Carlsberg Brewery in Copenhagen, where it was first isolated in 1883, 130 years ago. Carlsbergensis has gone through 4,550,000 generations and it is still the exact same strain of yeast as in 1883. It hasn’t mutated into anything else for 4-and-a-half million generations. One might say it hasn’t needed to, but where is the evidence that it could even try? In human terms those generations amount to 130 million (130,000,000) years.
New Scientist, a bastion of evolutionism, claims our ‘evolution from apes’ began ‘6 million years’ ago. But the evidence from the yeast is that 130 million years would not be enough time even to start the process. 6 million years of human ancestry is like expecting yeast after 6 years of brewing to jump out of the vat and become a mushroom. No doubt it shares just as much of its DNA with something else as we do with monkeys. But that genetic information relentlessly reproduces it as yeast.
I don’t have a lot of questions for evolutionists, I just have one. Well, actually, I do have a lot, but one will do, and it is this:
Who put the tuft on the head of the Tufted Duck?
What is the evolutionary purpose, or what advantage is conveyed to the species, as a species, by the tuft on the head of the tufted duck? And if I am allowed a supplementary or two: If there is no advantage to the species, what is the tuft on the head of the tufted duck actually for and how and why did it evolve?
You see, I know the answer, from a creationist point of view, at least.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
An EU report due to be voted through the EU Parliament later this year, they say, would see all marriages and civil contracts conducted in any EU country become legally binding in all other member states. Under the Berlinguer Report, a couple who are not permitted to marry in their home country could travel to another member state in order to wed, knowing that on their return home they would have to be regarded as married.
Paragraph 40 of the Report would mean that any member state would have to grant ‘all social benefits and other legal effects’ such as legal recognition, tax breaks and benefit entitlements to a married couple, even if such a marriage did not exist in their own legal system.
Mr Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, said: “Now we know why David Cameron has launched this highly contentious and disruptive legislation, apparently out of the blue.
“If a couple were to marry in Belgium, Spain, Portugal or Sweden where same-sex marriage is possible, the EU will say that they have to be given the same legal rights in whichever member state they then chose to live – even if that state itself opposes the introduction of same-sex marriage. In essence the Berlinguer Report seeks to establish an EU-wide right to same-sex marriage.
“It’s no surprise that the Prime Minister has kept quiet about this, even at the expense of cohesion in his own party. He has a hard enough time trying to force his own backbenchers to swallow both his dedication to keeping Britain in the EU and his wish for the state to interfere in the definition of marriage. To suggest that the two issues are in fact interconnected would have caused complete uproar.”
However, according to one website, the Berlinguer Report has already been voted on by the European Parliament, in November 2010, and has no legislative status. It is still part of the continuing libertarian process, of course. However, another document, a two-and-a-half-page ‘roadmap,’ will be adopted in November 2013. In dry language it speaks of ‘the importance of facilitating mutual recognition of civil status’ across the EU. It is this document, itself building on the Berlinguer Report, which will lead to a legislative initiative from the EU Commission, the seat of power. If David Cameron has already redefined marriage by that time, he will no doubt be all for other states recognising Britain’s sham ‘gay marriages’.
Christian Voice views the European Union as a godless, corrupt, pretentious, expensive, bureaucratic, oligarchic expression of Antichrist. But it has tried to end the misery of bent cucumber phobia, a dibillatating disorder which affects dozens of people every year…
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
Participants in the Tesco-funded 2012 London ‘Gay Pride’ parade.
Vote in the United Kingdom House of Commons on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill Second Reading 5th February 2013
Key to voting:
Aye=In Favour, No=Against, Abs=Absent or Abstained, A/N=Active abstention, Spe=Speaker (does not vote)
(Note that David Cameron, the Prime Minister, who has so actively promoted this measure, did not turn up to listen to the debate even though he voted for the Bill. Note also that more Conservative MPs voted against the Bill than voted for it.)
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
Allowing homosexuals to claim to be ‘married’ will devalue the currency of marriage.
MPs have shown contempt for God, the scriptures, our Christian heritage and six thousand years of human understanding by voting for ‘gay marriage’ in England and Wales.
The Commons voted in favour of the The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, by 400 to 175, a majority of 225, at the end of a day’s debate on the bill. More on the Bill here.
About 140 Conservative MPs are thought to have voted against the plans.
Former children’s minister and Conservative MP Tim Loughton told the BBC “Apparently there’s 132 Conservative MPs that voted in favour, so I think what we’re going to see is that more Conservative MPs voted against this legislation than for it.” The Bill will now move to its Committee Stage.
Sir Tony Baldry (Con): Although the failure to consummate a marriage will still be a ground on which a heterosexual marriage can be voidable, the Bill provides that consummation is not to be a ground on which a marriage of a same-sex couple will be voidable. It also provides that adultery is to have its existing definition—namely, sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex. It therefore follows that divorce law for heterosexual couples will be fundamentally different from divorce law for same-sex couples, because for heterosexual couples the matrimonial offence of adultery will persist while there will be no similar matrimonial offence in relation to same-sex marriage. The fact that officials have been unable to apply these long-standing concepts to same-sex marriage is a further demonstration of just how problematic is the concept of same-sex marriage.
Such a move will alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as the union of a man and a woman as enshrined in human institutions throughout history. Moreover, changing the nature of marriage for everyone will deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab):
The irony of the Bill is that it takes the current situation of equality of marriage and civil partnership and creates inequality. Under the terms of the Bill, there will be marriage in two forms—traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, which are neither the same nor equal. The Bill creates further inequality, with traditional marriages being allowed within some Churches and same-sex marriages not allowed. Same-sex couples will have the choice of civil partnership or marriage, whereas opposite-sex couples can have only traditional marriages—yet more inequality. The Bill is trying to engineer a cultural equivalence to tackle a perceived lack of equality in wider society. That does not sound to me like the basis of marriage.
The Government say that the Bill protects religious organisations, but there are conflicting legal opinions that robustly challenge that view. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing to stop a future Government legislating to allow, or indeed require, Churches to celebrate same-sex marriages. In fact, some commentators have said that they cannot wait until the Church of England and other faiths have to conduct same-sex marriages. Given that the Bill creates inequality, a legal challenge would surely be successful.
I am amazed that the Government should bring forward this Bill at a time when there are other pressing issues. Despite having gay friends and relatives, the issue of same-sex marriage has never once been brought to my attention; I have never had a constituent write to me asking me to raise it. I recall that many MPs were quick to praise the civil partnerships legislation as being everything that the gay community wanted—that it created the equality for which they had fought for so long. As we have heard, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—I hope he is still my hon. Friend—has previously said that in his view the idea that the gay community would want marriage is nonsense.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman that is open to the creation and care of children—not in all cases, but fundamentally that is its intrinsic value. This Bill will fundamentally change that. Despite all the issues that have been raised and the insults hurled by those on both sides of the argument, I will oppose the Bill. I believe that it creates inequality and that it does not tackle an existing inequality on the basis that the current legislation has been tested in the European Court and it has been shown that there is no inequality. I will oppose the Bill, and I urge any right hon. and hon. Members who are thinking of abstaining to vote against it.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con):
It is a pleasure to follow such a wise speech by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), and I will follow on from his main point.
This Bill does not create equality. It highlights the inequalities that will always exist, because the definition of marriage is based on the definition of sex. It is absolutely impossible to shoehorn same-sex marriage into the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to provide equality. The gay lobby have said themselves in their campaigning that they have been looking for a Bill that will give them the same rights as heterosexual couples and enable them to enjoy faithful and committed relationships. This Bill in no way makes a requirement of faithfulness from same-sex couples; in fact, it does the opposite. In a heterosexual marriage, a couple can divorce on the grounds of adultery, and the legal requirement for adultery to have taken place is that someone has had sex with a member of the opposite sex.
In a heterosexual marriage, a couple vow to forsake all others. They are basically saying, in accordance with liturgy and the 1973 Act, “I will forsake all others because to you I will be faithful in honour of our vows and my faithfulness to us and our marriage.” A gay couple have no obligation to make that vow. They do not have to forsake all others because they cannot divorce on the grounds of adultery; there is no requirement of faithfulness. If there is no requirement of faithfulness, what is a marriage?
The Minister says that there is no requirement for consummation in a marriage. No, there is not, but a marriage is voidable without consummation. There is no requirement for consummation in the Bill because the definition of marriage and the definition of sex is for ordinary and complete sex to have taken place. Same-sex couples cannot meet this requirement.
Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op):
I will give my personal view, which I know differs from the views of the vast majority of members of my party. I respect that difference.
For the first time in history, a Government have proposed a Bill that will change the very nature of marriage in law. Until now, society and the Church have had a shared view of the essential purpose of marriage. It is primarily an institution that supports the bearing and raising of children in a committed and constant relationship. The traditional understanding of marriage has three basic elements: it is between a man and a woman, it is for life, and it is to the exclusion of all others.
Article 16 of the universal declaration of human rights describes the family as
“the natural and fundamental group unit of society”
and defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. It states that the family is
“entitled to protection by society and the State.”
Those elements are designed not to exclude people or create inequality, but to promote the unique benefit of marriage in our society: it secures family environments and provides the essential qualities of safety and reliability for children.
Worryingly, the Bill rarely mentions children or parenthood. It emphasises the decision to take part in a ceremony more than the commitment to a lifelong relationship or having children. It is as if those elements are of no consequence.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con):
I had the privilege of chairing Committee proceedings on the Civil Partnership Bill. As has been said, very clear undertakings were given by the then Government and Opposition that that Bill was not the thin end of the wedge nor a paving Bill for same-sex marriage, but an end in itself to right considerable wrongs in the law. That it did, as the European Court of Human Rights has determined. In those respects, civil partnerships are indistinguishable from what we know as marriage.
When I put that point to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities, she said that no Government could bind another. Of course, she is correct. That kicks the bottom out of every undertaking that she has given. It is abundantly plain to most Conservative Members that the product of this Bill will end up before the courts and before the European Court of Human Rights, and that people of faith will find that faith trampled upon. That, to us, is intolerable.
I understand—I will give way to my right hon. Friend if she wishes to correct me—that the Cabinet paper on this matter was entitled “Redefining Marriage”. It is not possible to redefine marriage. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. It has been that historically and it remains so. It is Alice in Wonderland territory—Orwellian almost—for any Government of any political persuasion to try to rewrite the lexicon. It will not do.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con):
I am very disappointed to have to rise to oppose the Bill. I never imagined that I would be put in a position where I have, by virtue of standing up for marriage, been characterised variously as a “homophobic bigot”, a “religious nutter”, a product of the dark ages, or, as I see in this weekend’s press, on the brink of making “a tragic mistake” that I will have many years to regret. This was not in our main manifesto. To cite that it was on page 14 of the equalities contract, a sub-manifesto that had little or no public scrutiny, is disingenuous at best.
The assumption of the Bill is that marriage is just about love and commitment. Of course marriage is about love and commitment, but it is also about the complementarity, both biologically and as a mother and father, of a man and a woman who have an inherent probability of procreation and of raising children within that institution.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP):
Most people, even to this day, regard the United Kingdom as a Christian country. To some that is an embarrassment, while others thank God that our nation still has some gospel light and enjoys freedom of thought and speech. Each day, hon. Members gather in this Chamber to hear the Scriptures read and prayer offered to God, humbly asking for God’s blessing upon our Queen, her Government and our deliberations. We as leaders among our people still acknowledge God’s sovereign throne, the authority of His revered word and our need for wisdom far greater than our own. Sadly, after doing so today, we are turning from the teachings of that same book, and placing our wisdom and knowledge above divine wisdom.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
Christians are calling for prayer this Sunday, 3rd February, to strengthen the resolve of the Bill’s opponents and for a sizeable rebellion against the Bill from MP’s of all parties in the 2nd Reading Division.
There is no doubt that in a free vote in our House of Commons the Bill will pass, but a healthy rebellion will encourage the House of Lords to oppose this ill-thought-out measure which was not in any party manifesto.
But Mr Hammond is right. Homosexual activity is exactly on a par with incest. Homosexuals even talk about their ‘gay brothers’ and ‘gay sisters’.
Jesus Christ said this:
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
And of course two men or two women lack between them the full set of complementary equipment to be ‘one flesh’ in the physical expression of marriage. You can’t build a car with just bolts or just nuts.
Christian Voice asked the Government repeatedly how two homosexuals will consummate their ‘marriage’.
Initially, in their consultation they said it would be up to the courts to decide. We said that was not good enough. The Bill had to spell it out. But now, on the face of the Bill, the Government say those in a ‘gay marriage’ will not have to consummate it at all. Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (grounds on which a marriage is voidable) will ‘not apply to the marriage of a same sex couple.’
We also asked what will constitute adultery as a ground for divorce of a ‘gay marriage’. Again, in their consultation the Government said it would be up to the courts to define ‘adultery’ in a homosexual context. Now they say, in the Bill: ‘Only conduct between the respondent and a person of the opposite sex may constitute adultery for the purposes of ‘ the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (divorce on breakdown of marriage)’.
The Government have failed to deliver, because they never could. The homosexual lobby wanted equality in marriage. What they have been delivered is second-class marriage, a two-tier system, a Joke Marriage Bill. That will not stop them claiming to be ‘married’ and in the words of the Bill being ‘husband and husband’ or ‘wife and wife’ or usurping the time-honoured expressions ‘widow’ and ‘widower’.
And how long will it be before the concepts of consummation and adultery vanish from our statue book because of the inability of homosexuals to become ‘one flesh’ in the complete emotional and sexual sense? The currency of marriage itself – of every marriage in the land – will be degraded by these counterfeit marriages.
Clause 1 of the 1297 Magna Carta is still in force. It says this:
1. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. …
The front page of Magna Carta – The ‘Great Charter’ – of which Clause 1 is still in force.
Legal advice is that despite David Cameron’s ‘Quadruple Lock’ the Bill will open the door to a legal challenge on the freedom of the Church of England not to conduct false marriages. But if the C of E needs a ‘Quadruple Lock’ what is the legal position of every other church without it? They are being thrown to the homosexual equality wolves.
At the very best, a church or denomination will be bogged down in court cases and lawyers’ fees for years defending itself against a gay activist law suit, brought with the financial muscle of the Government-funded Stonewall group and the rest of the homosexual industry.
Christian Voice members and friends may feel free to print out this article and take it to church for prayer tomorrow.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
An RE teacher who recommended her pupils to sleep around instead of getting married has been banned from the profession, reports the Daily Telegraph.
The ban is for at least five years and has been imposed by Education Secretary Michael Gove. A disciplinary panel found her guilty of “unacceptable professional conduct” whilst employed at Saddleworth School, High Street, Uppermill, Oldham.
Catherine Reynolds, 29, also used abusive and profane language to pupils and spoke about her drinking habits.
Christian Voice National Director Stephen Green is due to speak about the matter on the Jeremy Vine show at 12.30 this afternoon, in a three-cornered discussion with someone who is actually prepared to defend her on the grounds that the occasional ‘loose cannon’ of a teacher adds colour to the profession.
Somehow we can’t see that defence being advanced from the sexual libertarian corner to defend someone teaching creationism in a biology class.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
Normally these stages would be some weeks apart, but the pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge has thrown the Government into a panic.
The Prince of Wales and a key House of Lords Committee have expressed misgivings over the Bill and highlighted the possibility of ‘unintended consequences’.
‘In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that person’s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever born).’
That might seem as if anyone can succeed to the throne, which would be rather good news to those of us born outside the royal family.
The only legislation needing consequential amendment is said to be the Treason Act 1351, which is surprising.
The Bill also abolishes the disqualification to succession to one in line to the throne who marries a Roman Catholic, and removes the need for members of the Royal Family – other than the immediate 6 in line- to seek the monarch’s permission to marry.
John Hemming MP has put down an amendment to the Bill to downgrade all wives of a future reigning king to ‘kings’ consort’. This equality measure would prevent the Duchess of Cambridge ever becoming queen.
And just as we predicted in our briefing paper Defending theCrown, an MP, Paul Flynn, is to put down an amendment to allow children from a same-sex royal ‘couple’ to succeed to the throne, even though the public would have no clue as to who was the real father (or mother, if two lesbians) and who out of all the semen or egg donors in the world was the other true parent.
At least, if John Hemming’s amendment goes through, the gay couple wouldn’t be king and king – or a pair of queens.
“The Government appear to want to legislate on royal succession as quickly as possible. This risks shortcutting proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Succession to the Crown Bill is clearly of constitutional significance and as such should not be treated as fast-track legislation.
“Recent commentators have raised possible unintended consequences of the Bill. The Committee is of the opinion that those matters are the kind of issues that Parliament must have suitable time to discuss; that will not be the case if the legislation is fast-tracked.”
Christian Voice continues to oppose the Succession to the Crown Bill and asks for prayer for Members of Parliament as they consider this unnecessary and destablising measure tomorrow.
Our Booklet Defending the Crown available in booklet form for £2.75 incl P&P HERE or online HERE.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join. If you do join, you will get ‘Defending the Crown’ free – specify it in the comments box.)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
It’s not just Britain. Elsewhere in the world, libertarian politicians are trampling over popular opinion to legislate ‘gay marriage’.
last Sunday week, half-a-million people marched through Paris in support of real marriage. demanding that President Francois Hollande withdraw the enabling bill and hold a national debate before any change in the definition of marriage.
Government spokeswoman Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, who is also women’s affairs minister, said nothing had changed. The plan to submit the reform bill in parliament late this month and pass it by June would go ahead undisturbed, she told Europe 1 radio.
“The government is totally determined to achieve this reform, this historic progress that is not the victory of one camp over another but progress for the whole society,” she said.
Christiane Taubira – changing civilisation
“We take note of the demonstration (but) this will be discussed in parliament and not in the street.”
Interior Minister Manuel Valls told the daily Le Monde: “We always thought the turnout would be strong and it was … All the more reason to stay focused on the goal of passing the law.”
Daniel Liechti of the Conseil National des Évangéliques de France said the protest showed a new role for religion in public life in France, a constitutionally secular country.
In New Zealeand, a select committee of MPs is currently assessing submissions from the public on Labour MP Louisa Wall’s Marriage Amendment Bill, but only after MP’s voted by 80 votes to 40 in favour of it last August (2012). Submissions closed in October with proponents and opponents said to be equally numbered.
The select committee is due to report back to the House by 28 February 2013 recommending whether the bill should be passed, and it may suggest amendments to the bill. No-one expects the select committee to object to the bill.
It will be interesting to see how the French and NZ Governments address the issues of consummation and adultery. If these are changed due to the inability of a homosexual couple to achieve them, they are changed for all marriages.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
The Oxford Union is to invite an American pro-family activist to address it after a mix-up on dates.
Scott Lively was due to speak last night in the annual ‘gay rights’ debate, but an error saw him given the date of the Israel debate on 31st January instead. As Mr Lively had already arranged his travel around that date, the President-Elect of the Union has courteously offered to schedule an additional event for him to speak on Friday 1st February.
Proposing the motion were PinkNews.co.uk and Out4Marriage founder Benjamin Cohen, gay rights activist Richard Fairbass of the band Right Said Fred, and Phyll Opoku-Gyimah of Black Pride UK. Opposing the motion was Peter D Williams of Catholic Voices, anti-abortion activist Anthony McCarthy, journalist Lynette Burrows and Rev George Hargreaves, leader of the Christian Party.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, has taken part in similar debates at both the Oxford and Cambridge Unions in the past. He said today:
‘Any pretence at an objective, fair-minded debate where minds could be changed by great oratory and consideration of factual evidence has vanished over the years. It has been replaced by emotionalism, fashion and barracking of opponents of the new intolerant status quo.
‘I can only admire the bravery of the young people who go through the ‘No’ lobby at these debates.’
Scott Lively, who has a personal testimony of the healing power of the Lord Jesus and is a strong advocate of Christian healing therapy for those suffering from same-sex attraction, has become a hate-figure of gay rights activists since his address on that subject to parliamentarians in Uganda was followed by the introduction of a Bill to make the promotion of sodomy in the East African nation illegal.
Things are seen differently in Africa from the universities of Britain.
‘Irresponsible’: Blake Harrison leads in BBC3’s suicide comedy ‘Way to Go’
An MP has criticised the BBC for planning to air a situation comedy which treats assisted suicide as a “matter of fun”, reports the Sunday Express.
‘Way To Go’ has three young men building a machine that can kill people. They offer their services for money to those who wish to end their lives. The show is written by US-based writer Bob Kushell and stars Blake Harrison, Marc Wootton and Ben Heathcote.
But Conservative MP Mark Pritchard has slammed the sitcom, planned to go out on BBC 3 this month. He said: “This is a sensitive and complex issue that should be handled with compassion and understanding.
“It is a sad fact that assisted dying is now regarded a ‘revenue stream’ to some foreign clinics and clearly as a matter of fun by some parts of the BBC.”
In one scene the lever of the machine is pulled to inject a fatal dose. Harrison’s next-door neighbour dies in a matter of seconds.
Later a friend phones from a pub with another client for the assisted suicide machine.
He tells him: “He’s got stomach cancer. How fantastic is that!”
Mark Pritchard MP: ‘Sensitive and complex issue’
BBC 3 controller Zai Bennett said: ‘Bob Kushell’s scripts are in turn dark, poignant, absurd, moving and brilliant, but mostly they are very, very funny. I’m thrilled that Way To Go is coming to BBC 3.’
Comedy producer Jon Plowman, responsible for shows such as The Office and Little Britain, said: ‘Way To Go is a show about a current and difficult issue but it treats its serious subject in the same way that Arsenic And Old Lace dealt with old lady poisoners or Kind Hearts And Coronets dealt with aristocratic murders.’
Government figures show that three-quarters of suicides in the UK are by men with those aged 30-39 at highest risk of suicide, followed by men aged 40-49.
However, teenage suicide is a serious and growing problem. Suicide is the second most common cause of death in people aged 15-24, behind accidental death.
Concerns have repeatedly been raised about websites promoting suicide and self-harm not least as reported in both the Daily Telegraph and the Independent. The latter reported on new research carried out by the charity ‘Beat Bullying’ which, it said, ‘revealed that websites encouraging suicide and self-harm topped a list of teenagers’ greatest worries about the internet. The findings have raised fears that growing numbers of young people are becoming vulnerable to the messages being put out by such sites.’
Tallulah Wilson committed suicide on the railway in a copy of that of fellow-fifteen-year-old Rosie Whitaker.
The Telegraph reported: ‘Tallulah had also dedicated her Twitter account to Rosie Whitaker, also 15, who apparently threw herself in front of a train at Beckenham Junction station in south-east London in June after becoming “heavily influenced” by suicide websites.’
In Bridgend, a spate of teenage suicides prompted Phillip Walters, the coroner, to investigate social media websites which were heavily implicated in the deaths. The coroner said: ‘I shall be looking at these networking sites myself to see if there is a link between them and the growing number of youngsters committing suicide.’ Bridgend MP Madeleine Moon described the deaths as ‘tragic’.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today:
‘Amidst a growing cult of suicide among young people, BBC3 thinks it is appropriate to screen a comedy making light of suicide, in which the protagonists are those from exactly the most vulnerable demographic. The comparison with 1940s film comedies is false. There are not legions of old ladies about to be prompted to become serial killers. But there are hundreds if not thousands of vulnerable teenagers.
‘Making suicide funny makes it acceptable. BBC3 is reinforcing the message of the suicide websites. ‘Irresponsible’ hardly conveys the enormity of it. If their programme results in just one suicide of a troubled young person, BBC3 controller Zai Bennett and new Director General Tony Hall will have blood on their hands.’
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
Homosexual activists are urging multinational companies to usurp democracy in Uganda.
Patrick Strudwick, an agent provocateur who posed as a Christian seeking healing for same-sex attraction in order to attack Christian counsellor Lesley Pilkington, is leading the charge.
In an email, Strudwick writes:
‘In a matter of days — possibly even hours — Uganda’s parliament is set to pass the so-called “Kill the Gays” bill, which could enshrine in law the death penalty for LGBT people. Their Speaker described the bill as a “Christmas gift” for the Ugandan people.
‘Activists in Uganda say that one way to stop this is by putting pressure on powerful international banks in the country to condemn the bill.
‘Barclays and Citibank both have millions of pounds invested in Uganda and wield a huge influence on the government. A public statement from Barclays speaking out against the “Kill the Gays” bill might be the best chance to stop it and save gay people from being executed.
‘Both banks have supported human rights for LGBT people in the Europe and the US. Barclays is one of the UK’s top employers for LGBT people and prides itself on its work championing gay equality in Britain, which is why I’ve been a customer of theirs for years.
‘If these banks speak out against the bill the Ugandan government will see the huge risk posed to business and their economy if they forge ahead with it.
‘That’s why I’ve started a petition’ … he drones on.
There are two main things wrong with this outpouring from a character described as ‘Smugtwit’ and one of ‘Britain’s two most boring gay men’ by a homosexual blogger.
The second is that the Bill of which he complains is not remotely a ‘kill the gays’ measure anyway.
Now, in its first draft it did provide for the death penalty for those who use the act of sodomy to infect others with HIV/Aids, and those who sodomise children. What penalty would Strudwick want to see for such paragons of ‘gay virtue’? Nothing? An award of ‘Infectious Personality of the Year’ in next year’s Stonewall awards?
It also addressed an anomaly in which those found guilty of rape face the death penalty but those convicted of forced sodomy do not. Again, what penalty does Strudwick think is appropriate for homosexuals who violate others like that? ‘Sports Award of the Year’, perhaps, sponsored as it was this year, by Barclays?
The true reason behind the Bill, introduced three years ago by Ugandan ruling party members David Bahati, is to protect Uganda’s children from being recruited into the homosexual lifestyle by wealthy Western pederasts.
A secondary problem addressed by the Bill is the promotion of sodomy by Western NGO’s such as Jon Stryker’s Arcus Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Dutch humanist group Hivos and George Soros’s ‘Open Society’. On top of all that is the ‘strings-attached’ foreign aid from the US, the EU and Britain. The East Aftican homosexual propaganda industry is entirely funded by rich homosexuals and their friends in the West.
Simon Lokodo, the Minister for ‘Ethics and Integrity’ plans to ban 38 different organisations that are currently promoting homosexuality if the Bill becomes law. It is the Bill’s clamp-down on their proselytisation which most annoys Western homosexuals, and the loss of an exotic playground where adolescent boys can be enticed with a couple of dollars.
The Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, told The Associated Press on Monday 12th November that the bill will become law this year.
The Hon Rebecca Kadaga, Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament.
Ugandans “are demanding it,” she said, reiterating a promise she made before a meeting on Friday of anti-gay activists who spoke of “the serious threat” posed by homosexuals to Uganda’s children. Some Christian clerics at the meeting in the Ugandan capital, Kampala, asked the speaker to pass the law as “a Christmas gift.”
“Speaker, we cannot sit back while such (a) destructive phenomenon is taking place in our nation,” the activists said in a petition. “We therefore, as responsible citizens, feel duty-bound to bring this matter to your attention as the leader of Parliament … so that lawmakers can do something to quickly address the deteriorating situation in our nation.”
The anti-gay activists paraded in front of Mrs Kadaga, with parents and schoolchildren holding up signs saying homosexuality is “an abomination.” The speaker then promised to consider the bill within two weeks, declaring that “the power is in our hands.”
“Who are we not to do what they have told us? These people should not be begging us,” Mrs Kadaga said of activists who want the bill to become law.
3 Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the join/donate button below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will not be accepted.
What Obama’s Re-Election Tells us About America (Part 1)
On the surface, Obama’s re-election was a puzzle. With unemployment in America at 7.9%, food prices skyrocketing and the price of living at it’s highest in three years, all the odds were stacked against the incumbent. By all accounts, Romney should have sailed to an easy victory.
The common narratives to explain Obama’s re-election doesn’t really get to the root of things. Republicans are blaming Obama’s re-election on the fact that Romney was insufficiently conservative and too changeable, that the Obama campaign was better organized, that Romney had managed to alienate the Hispanic vote during the primaries, or that Hurricane Sandy deflected media focus away from Romney’s campaign in the final crucial days.
While all of these factors played a part, they don’t really get at the deeper spiritual and social issues which explain why the American electorate was so eager to give Obama another four years. In series of five blog posts I will seek to uncover some of those deeper issues and to ask, “What does Obama’s re-election tells us about America?”
Changing Spiritual Environment
America’s choice to re-elect Obama has huge spiritual significance because of what Obama symbolically represents. Never before have Americans chosen a national figurehead who was as openly hostile to the Christian faith.
Earlier this year David Barton did us a great service of putting together in one place a list of Obama’s acts of hostility to the Christian faith. I want to quote Barton’s list in full. (Click on the footnotes to see references substantiating that Obama or his administration actually did these things.) The fact that the United States decided to re-elect a President with this kind of track record says much about the changing spiritual environment of contemporary America.
1. Acts of hostility toward people of Biblical faith:
April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” 1
February 2009 – Obama announces plans to revoke conscience protection for health workers who refuse to participate in medical activities that go against their beliefs, and fully implements the plan in February 2011. 2
April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus’ name be covered when he is making his speech. 3
May 2009 – Obama declines to host services for the National Prayer Day (a day established by federal law) at the White House. 4
April 2009 – In a deliberate act of disrespect, Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican; of course, the pro-life Vatican rejected all three. 5
October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions. 6
November 2010 – Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law. 7
January 2011 – After a federal law was passed to transfer a WWI Memorial in the Mojave Desert to private ownership, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the cross in the memorial could continue to stand, but the Obama administration refused to allow the land to be transferred as required by law, and refused to allow the cross to be re-erected as ordered by the Court. 8
February 2011 – Although he filled posts in the State Department, for more than two years Obama did not fill the post of religious freedom ambassador, an official that works against religious persecution across the world; he filled it only after heavy pressure from the public and from Congress. 9
April 2011 – For the first time in American history, Obama urges passage of a non-discrimination law that does not contain hiring protections for religious groups, forcing religious organizations to hire according to federal mandates without regard to the dictates of their own faith, thus eliminating conscience protection in hiring. 10
August 2011 – The Obama administration releases its new health care rules that override religious conscience protections for medical workers in the areas of abortion and contraception. 11
November 2011 – Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial. 12
November 2011 – Unlike previous presidents, Obama studiously avoids any religious references in his Thanksgiving speech. 13
December 2011 – The Obama administration denigrates other countries’ religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights. 14
January 2012 – The Obama administration argues that the First Amendment provides no protection for churches and synagogues in hiring their pastors and rabbis. 15
February 2012 – The Obama administration forgives student loans in exchange for public service, but announces it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion. 16
2. Acts of hostility from the Obama-led military toward people of Biblical faith:
June 2011 – The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burial ceremonies at Houston National Cemetery. 17
August 2011 – The Air Force stops teaching the Just War theory to officers in California because the course is taught by chaplains and is based on a philosophy introduced by St. Augustine in the third century AD – a theory long taught by civilized nations across the world (except America). 18
September 2011 – Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of programs and services available to them from chaplains. 19
September 2011 – The Army issues guidelines for Walter Reed Medical Center stipulating that “No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials and/or facts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.” 20
November 2011 – The Air Force Academy rescinds support for Operation Christmas Child, a program to send holiday gifts to impoverished children across the world, because the program is run by a Christian charity. 21
November 2011 – The Air Force Academy pays $80,000 to add a Stonehenge-like worship center for pagans, druids, witches and Wiccans. 22
February 2012 – The U. S. Military Academy at West Point disinvites three star Army general and decorated war hero Lieutenant General William G. (“Jerry”) Boykin (retired) from speaking at an event because he is an outspoken Christian. 23
February 2012 – The Air Force removes “God” from the patch of Rapid Capabilities Office (the word on the patch was in Latin: Dei). 24
February 2012 – The Army orders Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners that their archbishop asked them to read. 25
April 2012 – A checklist for Air Force Inns will no longer include ensuring that a Bible is available in rooms for those who want to use them.26
May 2012 – The Obama administration opposes legislation to protect the rights of conscience for military chaplains who do not wish to perform same-sex marriages in violation of their strongly-held religious beliefs.27
June 2012 – Bibles for the American military have been printed in every conflict since the American Revolution, but the Obama Administration revokes the long-standing U. S. policy of allowing military service emblems to be placed on those military Bibles.28
3. Acts of hostility toward Biblical values:
January 2009 – Obama lifts restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, forcing taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. 29
January 2009 – President Obama’s nominee for deputy secretary of state asserts that American taxpayers are required to pay for abortions and that limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional. 30
March 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. 31
March 2009 – Obama orders taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. 32
March 2009 – Obama gave $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that promotes abortion and works closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations. 33
May 2009 – The White House budget eliminates all funding for abstinence-only education and replaces it with “comprehensive” sexual education, repeatedly proven to increase teen pregnancies and abortions. 34 He continues the deletion in subsequent budgets. 35
May 2009 – Obama officials assemble a terrorism dictionary calling pro-life advocates violent and charging that they use racism in their “criminal” activities. 36
July 2009 – The Obama administration illegally extends federal benefits to same-sex partners of Foreign Service and Executive Branch employees, in direction violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 37
September 16, 2009 – The Obama administration appoints as EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, who asserts that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, if they may negatively affect homosexual “equality.” 38
July 2010 – The Obama administration uses federal funds in violation of federal law to get Kenya to change its constitution to include abortion. 39
August 2010 – The Obama administration Cuts funding for 176 abstinence education programs. 40
September 2010 – The Obama administration tells researchers to ignore a judge’s decision striking down federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. 41
February 2011 – Obama directs the Justice Department to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 42
March 2011 – The Obama administration refuses to investigate videos showing Planned Parenthood helping alleged sex traffickers get abortions for victimized underage girls. 43
July 2011 – Obama allows homosexuals to serve openly in the military, reversing a policy originally instituted by George Washington in March 1778. 44
September 2011 – The Pentagon directs that military chaplains may perform same-sex marriages at military facilities in violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 45
October 2011 – The Obama administration eliminates federal grants to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for their extensive programs that aid victims of human trafficking because the Catholic Church is anti-abortion. 46
4. Acts of preferentialism for Islam:
May 2009 – While Obama does not host any National Day of Prayer event at the White House, he does host White House Iftar dinners in honor of Ramadan. 47
April 2010 – Christian leader Franklin Graham is disinvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer Event because of complaints from the Muslim community. 48
April 2010 – The Obama administration requires rewriting of government documents and a change in administration vocabulary to remove terms that are deemed offensive to Muslims, including jihad, jihadists, terrorists, radical Islamic, etc. 49
August 2010 – Obama speaks with great praise of Islam and condescendingly of Christianity. 50
August 2010 – Obama went to great lengths to speak out on multiple occasions on behalf of building an Islamic mosque at Ground Zero, while at the same time he was silent about a Christian church being denied permission to rebuild at that location. 51
2010 – While every White House traditionally issues hundreds of official proclamations and statements on numerous occasions, this White House avoids traditional Biblical holidays and events but regularly recognizes major Muslim holidays, as evidenced by its 2010 statements on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha. 52
October 2011 – Obama’s Muslim advisers block Middle Eastern Christians’ access to the White House. 53
February 2012 – The Obama administration makes effulgent apologies for Korans being burned by the U. S. military, 54 but when Bibles were burned by the military, numerous reasons were offered why it was the right thing to do. 55
PRAY: that the Lord would have mercy on America and strengthen His church during this time of virulent opposition to the gospel.
An Exclusive Brethren church trust in Devon is to consider advertising its services to satisfy the Charity Commission that it serves a public benefit, according to Third Way magazine yesterday.
The news that the Preston Down Trust had been refused charitable status was greeted with alarm in some Christian circles, but the National Director of Christian Voice believes it is a very special case and that good can come from it if the decision forces churches into the gospel imperative of social action.
In a letter to the Brethren, the Charity Commission cited a tribunal ruling that religion is not always for “the public benefit” and said “there is no presumption that religion generally, or at any more specific level, is for the public benefit, even in the case of Christianity or the Church of England”.
The Exclusive Brethren are a Christian denomination who have no fellowship with those outside. They affix a small sign to their meeting hall stating that it is a place of public worship to satisfy the law, but little else gives its function away. They do not extend hospitality to outsiders and are not involved in the community at large, keeping themselves as separate as they can from the world.
MPs on the Public Administration Select Committee, which is investigating the work of the Charity Commission, are concerned that the commission could start denying charitable status to other religious groups.
Charlie Elphicke, a member of the committee and the MP for Dover and Deal, believes the commission is ‘committed to the suppression of religion’.
The Charities Act 2006 means that organisations which previously gained charitable status automatically now have to demonstrate “public benefit”.
Professor Peter Luxton, an expert in charity law at Cardiff University, said the Charity Commission’s attempt to define public benefit was “a nonsense,” since the 2006 law did not make any changes to the definition of a charity.
He added: “The Commission has been completely out of control.”
The Charity Commission said: ‘The application from Preston Down Trust was not accepted on the basis that we were unable to conclude that the organisation is established for the advancement of religion for public benefit within the relevant charity law.’
A spokeswoman went further, saying that the decision to deny charitable status to the Preston Down Trust ‘took into account the nature of Christian religion embraced by the trust and the means through which this was promoted, including the public access to its services and the potential for its beneficial impact on the wider community’, according to Third Sector.
Rod Buckley, a member of Preston Down Trust, said that it does allow non-members to attend services, but advertising its meetings will demonstrate that.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said:
‘This decision, while it may seem unwelcome, is not quite the big deal that some are making out. There is not the remotest possibility of churches up and down the land losing their charitable status.
‘In a sense it is a pity that new charity law has allowed the Charity Commission to change the old understanding that the promotion of religion is a good thing and that ‘it is good for people to have a religion’, but that was in an era when ‘religion’ in our land simply meant Christianity.
‘However, in Britain today, we are beginning to see that not all religion is good. Churches engage, or should engage, in social action, and the Christian faith has brought immense benefit to our nation. Our laws were historically based on Christian principles of justice, although secularists have deliberately legislated against righteousness in the last fifty years. Our heritage of generosity, altruism, philanthropy and care for the poor and needy were based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, although these too are now under pressure.
‘But other religions struggle to show any public benefit. Mosques and Islamic trusts further the Islamic faith and give nothing beneficial to the community at large. Hinduism is similarly introspective, while campaigning atheist concerns with charitable status offer nothing that could conceivably be described as having a public benefit.
‘By observing that the Exclusive Brethren need to show how their faith benefits the outside world, the Charity Commission are pussing them into an openness and a willingness to serve that should be at the heart of the Gospel. That can only be a good thing.
‘Christians and churches in general need to take note and if they do not have projects which benefit the community, they should put them in place as a matter of urgency. God became one of us in Jesus Christ, and especially as we come up to Christmas, we need to learn the message of his incarnation and become his hands and feet doing what he urged us to do on earth. In addition, we need to show that Christians live industrious, God-fearing lives which make a positive impact on the world around us.
‘We should also begin to draw the attention of the Charity Commission to the lack of public benefit of anti-Christian bodies with charitable status. Groups promoting evil under the guise of ‘educating the public’ should be exposed for what they are. The Charity Commission may have done the cause of Christ a lot of good in this decision.’
Some suggestions of social action church projects:
Engaging with the community in prayer and worship
Evangelism
Wide advertising of worship meetings, services and projects
Street Pastors and ‘Night Lights’
Soup Kitchens
Food Banks
Offering help with unemployment claim forms and housing benefits
Debt counselling
Helping people into work with courses, drafting CVs, etc
Advice with business skills and encouragement,
Marriage preparation, guidance, and building.
Poverty relief at home
Support of projects overseas
MIcro-finance
Support for parents in trouble with Social Services,
Help with parenting and home management skills,
Speaking out on the issues of the day,
Do our members have any other suggestions?
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Christian Voice National Director Stephen Green handing out leaflets outside Coutts Bank HQ opposite London’s Charing Cross Station on Friday 26th October. Coutts condemned Stonewall’s ‘bigot’ award on Monday 29th.
It’s not often we are able to celebrate a victory, but the announcement from the Queen’s bankers that they will no longer support the Stonewall lobby group’s playground bullying is welcome news.
Coutts Bank have joined Barclays in condemning Stonewall’s insulting ‘Bigot of the year’ award. In an email sent to one of our members on Monday evening they said:
‘Thank you for your email. Coutts are sponsors only of Stonewall’s Writer of the Year Award and have in no way been involved in the judging or support of the Bigot of the Year category. We have advised Stonewall that we will be withdrawing our support of the awards unless they remove this category.’
Coutts remarkable decision comes just one working day after we gave out leaflets about the affair to Coutts employees in a street witness outside their London headquarters in The Strand last Friday afternoon.
We first encouraged our members to pray, write and email to the directors of Barclays, Coutts and Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) on 3rd October concerning their sponsorship of categories of the Stonewall awards and to draw their attention to the ‘bigot’ award.
Barclays immediately condemned the ‘bigot’ award in trenchant terms. Their ‘Head of Global Diversity’, Mark McLane, said the next day:
‘As part of what is a positive longstanding relationship with Stonewall we were approached to see if we would be willing to sponsor a category for the 2012 Awards, which we agreed to do – the Sports Personality of the Year – on the understanding that the awards are a celebration of diversity and positive impact in our communities.
‘I have recently been made aware of the inclusion of a ‘Bigot of the Year’ category in the awards. Let me be absolutely clear that Barclays does not support that award category either financially, or in principle and have informed Stonewall that should they decide to continue with this category we will not support this event in the future. To label any individual so subjectively and pejoratively runs contrary to our view on fair treatment, and detracts from what should be a wholly positively focused event.’
Going further, Mr McLane said: ‘We have been very clear with Stonewall that we regard the award in question to be beyond the pale and will not sponsor this event in the future should they decide to continue this award category.’
Despite that, Mr McLane continued:
‘This matter apart, it is our view that Stonewall do valuable work in the field of promoting equality, and provide outstanding resource to our communities in the pursuit of becoming more diverse and inclusive.’
Whether Barclays support Stonewall’s new demand for ‘gay marriage’ or not Mr McLane has failed to say.
However, Coutts and PWC, while distancing themselves from the ‘bigot’ award, failed to condemn it. The move by Coutts leaves PWC out on a limb.
Despite the Banks’ condemnation, Stonewall are intent on keeping the ‘bigot’ award, even if it means losing sponsorship for some of the categories. Awash with donations and public money, they are certainly wealthy enough to fund the whole event without the need for the odd £5,000 in prize money.
Ben Summerskill, Stonewall’s Chief Executive, told the Guardian: “We have never called anyone a bigot just because they disagreed with us.” He continued “All the nominees have gone well beyond what anyone normal would call a decent level of public discourse.”
Stonewall said goodbye to Nationwide Building Society’s sponsorship of the whole event this year thanks to a dogged campaign of prayer and action by Christian Voice members from November last year up to its AGM in July 2012.
We are grateful to Christian Concern for joining our campaign against these awards on Monday. Co-incidentally, Coutts were formulating their shift in position as Christian Concern were putting out an email encouraging their people to lobby the CEO’s of Barclays, Coutts and PWC. They were able to celebrate the Lord’s victory just one day later.
Pray: Praise the Lord for his victory. Pray for the directors at PWC that they too will condemn the ‘bigot’ award. Pray for the Lord to expose the bullying Stonewall group and for their support to fall away.
But not content with congratulating those who have advanced the homosexual cause, Stonewall also have a ‘bigot of the year’ award, just to insult and bully their opponents.
Christian Voice supporters started outside Coutts Bank at lunchtime, before moving to Barclays flagship branch in Piccadiily Circus and finishing at PWC for going-home time.
In fairness, our leaflets pointed out that Barclays have at least condemned the ‘bigot award’ as ‘beyond the pale’ which is more than Coutts or PWC have done. Nevertheless, all three institutions compliment Stonewall on their work.
PWC’s front entrance off Tooley Street, SE1. Do its directors agree with Stonewall’s demands for gay marriage or not?
Whether that means the directors of PWC, Coutts and Barclays support ‘gay marriage’, Stonewall’s big new demand, and the consequent redefinition of marriage and it key concept of ‘consummation’, none of them have yet addressed.
Last year, Nationwide Building Society sponsored the whole awards dinner, but after being made of the ‘bigot’ award by Christian Voice, pulled out of any more financial involvement with the dinner (see links below).
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, commented today:
‘This was a very blessed time for us, and we pray that some of the 250 leaflets we handed out to the well-dressed employees of Coutts opposite Charing Cross Station and the 100 at Barclays have made people think about whether these banks’ relationship with Stonewall is a bit too close.
‘The security staff at Coutts and Barclays were dignified enough to stay inside and allow our witness to proceed uninterrupted. The same could not be said of PWC, whose bouncers tried to have us moved on. PWC has a back entrance in the private ‘More London’ complex, and its main entrance is in Abbey Street off Tooley Street near London Bridge Station.
Don’t cross the line! The division between the public highway in Tooley St and More London’s diagonal paving in Abbey St.
‘They came out to remonstrate and even called the ‘More London’ staff when we were on the public highway in Tooley Street. Clearly we struck a nerve, but the PWC staff were more willing than the Coutts folk or the Barclays customers and passers-by to take our leaflets. Four hundred were given out at PWC, a total for the day of 750.
‘We also had an encounter with the police when someone complained that the leaflets were insulting, abusive or threatening, along the lines of Section 5 of the Public Order ACt 1986. However, the police office who attended told us he saw that we were calm and reasonable, not causing an obstruction, and that there was nothing in the leaflet that could cause a reasonable person alarm or distress.
‘The leaflets also nailed five key lies told by the sodomy lobby and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ. All in all it was a very worthwhile exercise and we pray that our gracious God will open someone’s mind to the sad truth about homosexuality and turn at least one heart to the truth that Jesus Christ died to release everyone who belives in him from both the stain of sin and the power of sin.
‘May God be praised and glorified in the Lord Jesus’
Text of the Leaflets (Coutts and PWC are similar):
The five lies told by homosexual activists nailed by the Christian Voice leaflets:
‘(1) Homosexuals claim to be 10% of the population on the basis of the dishonest Kinsey Report. The true figure from proper academic research is around 1.5%.
‘(2) They claim they were born that way, refusing to accept the evidence of ‘ex-gay’ men and women who have turned their backs on the gay lifestyle and been released from their homosexual desires.
‘(3) They insist they just want to live their lives in peace, yet they hold intimidating gay pride parades and their paid activists campaign for laws to silence dissenting voices and force all of us to respect their immorality.
‘(4) They do all they can to avoid discussing the reality of their abusive, dangerous sexual practices, framing their arguments instead in terms of ‘human rights’.
‘(5) They pretend their lives are just the same as everyone else’s, despite academic studies revealing promiscuity levels and associated ill-health in the gay world unheard of even in today’s sex-obsessed heterosexual society.’
Andy Stephenson of Abort67 was asked about the location of the witness and said yesterday: ‘Why university campuses? Because not only are 19-24 year olds having significant numbers of abortions, but this is where our future leaders are.
‘We saw people change their minds in this way today. One guy who was studying nursing at another university talked at length with the team and left saying he was going to try and get us a three hour lecture spot for his medical faculty. Others included a Law student who moved significantly in his position.’
Pro-abortion students attempt to obscure the pro-life message
Pro-abortion students mounted a counter-demonstration after a couple of hours, standing in front of the pictures shouting and swearing in the hope that people wouldn’t notice the pro-life witness.
Andy Stephenson continued: ‘I am fairly certain that the rest of the day, the only topic of conversation on campus was abortion. Indeed before I even had a chance to unpack our things, a blogger at Huffington Post responded with an article.
‘It is unlikely (though not impossible) that those so entrenched in their pro-death position will ever move, but they are not our target audience. A majority of people are just plain ambivalent about abortion. These are the ones with functioning consciences and enough intellectual honesty to recognise they have been lied to about who the baby is and what abortion will do to him/her.
‘I am always amazed that pro-aborts don’t see the irony in what they blindly recite over and over. If people are distressed by what they believe to be a noble choice, it is because abortion is a distressing act. Of course, we are grateful for the coverage and the inclusion of one of our graphic images that will now be seen by countless people.
‘Do the pictures work? The pro-aborts think so.’
Please sign our simple online petition to Parliament to repeal the 1967 Abortion Act:
How a DDOS attack works – The attacker recruits thousands of slave computers to send simultaneous requests to the target website.
Yesterday, the Christian Voice website was off-line most of the day after coming under a massive cyber-attack. We apologise to our members and readers but there was nothing we could do.
Our web host reported at 8:22 am: ‘A few moments ago the Christian Voice website began to come under a massive DDOS attack which quickly crippled the server.
‘You’ve probably upset some people! We see these from time to time – it’s usually outspoken Christians who get targetted.
‘I’ve had to temporarily suspend it, as the attackers had sufficient resources to bring down the whole shared-hosting machine – if you were paying for dedicated hosting, i.e. only your website on a single machine belonging to you, you’d still be brought down.
‘The scale of the attack was the largest we’ve ever seen. When people have enough resources, they can bring Amazon down.
‘Sadly, launching powerful attacks is very cheap these days. You can go onto the Internet’s “underground” and hire the computing capacity of thousands of virus infected computers for a few minutes for a few dollars, and that’s enough to bring down a few servers.’
In the Police and Justice Act 2006, the United Kingdom specifically outlawed denial-of-service attacks and set a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. But the attack was from faked IP addresses which cannot be traced.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today:
‘This attack on our website is encouraging. I don’t know whether it was Secularirists or Islamists we have upset beyond measure, but clearly someone out there thinks Christian Voice is doing such a great job we have to be disrupted. So by the grace of God we’ll stand up for Jesus Christ and for righteousness all the more.’
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Baby in its amniotic sac eight weeks from conception
Jeremy Hunt’s view that the abortion limit should be halved to 12 weeks is untenable, says the National Director of Christian Voice.
The Health Secretary said he believed there is a moral case for cutting the current time limit of 24 weeks.
“Everyone looks at the evidence and comes to a view about when they think that moment is, and my own view is that 12 weeks is the right point for it,” Mr Hunt told The Times.
Mr Hunt, who was appointed to his post last month, denied that his view on abortion was based on religious belief.
He said: “It’s just my view about that incredibly difficult question about the moment that we should deem life to start. I don’t think the reason I have that view is for religious reasons.”
David Steel and Yvette Cooper would allow the legalised killing of this unborn child 20 weeks after conception
Prime Minister David Cameron, Culture Secretary Maria Miller and Home Secretary Theresa May backed a reduction of four weeks, to twenty weeks, but Mr Cameron stressed there were no plans to bring legislation forward.
Some Christian groups have urged their members to write and thank Mr Hunt, Mrs May and Mrs Miller but Anthony Ozimic of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said any move to reduce the abortion limit was doomed to failure. “There is a large pro-abortion majority in parliament which will ensure that any time-limiting amendments are rejected while using the opportunity to push for pro-abortion amendments,” he said.
“The real political debate about abortion in the UK should focus – as it does elsewhere in the world – on the right to life of all unborn children and on the way governments bankroll abortion access at home and abroad.”
Andrew Stephenson of Abort67 agreed. A Parliamentary debate “may allow the pro-aborts to slip in amendments to make access to abortion easier.” He said a reduction might save a few babies from death but pointed out that well over 90% of abortions take place in the first trimester (13 weeks and below) in any case.
A baby in its amniotic sac less than a month after conception, sadly removed because it was growing ectopically, in the mother’s fallopian tube. Abortion can always be allowed to save the life of the mother – but not her lifestyle!
On a positive note, Mr Stephenson said:
“Any attack on the abortion industry is a good thing. This puts them on the defensive and causes them to speak. If you have listened to the abortion advocates speak you will know that they always provide us with new openings to expose how deceptive and corrupt they really are. We want them to keep speaking!
“It also shows that there is growing discontent for the status quo. When MPs feel they can stand up for issues that would have previously been considered too contentious they must know that things are changing; over 63% of people (and increasing) in a recent poll support a total ban on abortion.”
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said:
“I am totally perplexed by Mr Hunt’s logic. Why should we ‘deem life to start’ at twelve weeks when all organs are in place at eight weeks, the baby’s heart is already beating four weeks after conception and all genetic material is there when sperm meets egg? His view is simply untenable.” (See link here.)
Mr Hunt’s remarks drew a predictable tirade of abuse from abortionists and their supporters.
Lord Steel, the unrepentant architect of the Abortion Act 1967, responsible for the deaths of over 6 million British children, “expressed his dismay” while shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper described Mr Hunt’s remarks as “chilling”.
“David Cameron needs to make sure his health secretary doesn’t distort medical evidence and does not impose his own view on women about their health,” she said.
Stephen Green responded:
Child in the womb at 16 weeks gestation – an entirely separate human being from his mother.
“All but a handful of abortions are carried out on perfectly healthy women who just find this new human being growing inside them inconvenient. As for medical evidence, Yvette Cooper merely needs to look at the wonderful new catalogue of images of children in the womb. And if she wants something really ‘chilling’, she could take a look at the results of abortion.” The results of abortion – pictures here.
Antony Jenkins, Chief Executive of Barclays, is giving cash to Stonewall as they call their opponents ‘bigots’
Two banks and a leading firm of accountants are sponsoring a homosexual group as it goes about its annual name-calling exercise.
Barclays Bank, Coutts Bank and Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) are named as sponsors of Stonewall, the ‘gay rights’ lobby group, on an advertisement for this year’s awards dinner, which includes an award for ‘Bigot of the Year’.
The homosexual group’s awards dinner takes place at the Victoria and Albert Museum on Thursday 1st November 2012 and is likely to be the focus of a street witness.
The Earl of Home, Chairman of Coutts, which is sponsoring the Stonewall awards
But Stonewall are not satisfied with congratulating those who have advanced their cause. They have to insult their opponents.
So among the awards is an anti-award called ‘Bigot of the Year’ intended to insult and vilify people particularly opposed to the gay rights agenda. Those shortlisted this year are Christian politician Alan Craig, the Ugandan Ethics and Integrity Minister, Simon Lokodo, Lord Maginnis, Cardinal Keith O’Brien and Archbishop Philip Tartaglia.
Previous ‘nominees’ and ‘winners’ have included the Bishop of Hereford, Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, Northern Ireland politician Iris Robinson, journalist Jan Moir, Chris Grayling MP, the Earl of Devon, Lillian Ladele, Frederick Forsyth, A.A. Gill of The Sunday Times, Rt Rev Arthur Roche, hotelier Susanne Wilkinson, Melanie Phillips, Scottish entrepreneur Sir Brian Souter, Bill Walker, MSP and Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice.
In response, Alan Craig said: “The Bigot of the Year Award is a vicious name-calling Stonewall annual event that reflects more on the donor than the recipient.
Philip Powell is Chairman and Senior Partner of Price Waterhouse Coopers, sponsors of the Stonewall awards.
“By attempting to bully, intimidate, humiliate and generate hatred of individuals through the award, Stonewall fully justifies the Gaystapo tag which I gave the organisation and for which apparently I have been nominated.”
Mr Craig continued: “Nonetheless if I win the award over the other candidates and if Stonewall invite me, and permit me without harassment to offer a proper acceptance speech, I plan to attend their awards dinner and ceremony”.
Alan Craig’s gauntlet is unlikely to be taken up. In previous years Stonewall have never found the courtesy or the courage to invite to their dinner any of those shortlisted for ‘Bigot of the Year’.
Stephen Green added: ‘Bullies never like it when someone stands up to them. Or perhaps social intercourse is just not one of Stonewall’s strong points.’
Last year, the Nationwide Building Socety gave £60,000 to Stonewall for the dinner (which did not stop the greedy lobby group from charging £180 a ticket) and they gave £5,000 as a prize to the ‘Community Group of the Year’. Nationwide have pulled out of sponsoring any more Stonewall events following adverse publicity.
In an email, Mark McLane, Barclays Director of Global Diversity and Inclusion, said:
‘As part of what is a positive longstanding relationship with Stonewall we were approached to see if we would be willing to sponsor a category for the 2012 Awards, which we agreed to do – the Sports Personality of the Year – on the understanding that the awards are a celebration of diversity and positive impact in our communities.
‘I have recently been made aware of the inclusion of a ‘Bigot of the Year’ category in the awards. Let me be absolutely clear that Barclays does not support that award category either financially, or in principle and have informed Stonewall that should they decide to continue with this category we will not support this event in the future. To label any individual so subjectively and pejoratively runs contrary to our view on fair treatment, and detracts from what should be a wholly positively focused event.’
To date, Coutts and PWC have refused to condemn the ‘bigot’ award’.
Stephen Green said: ‘Barclays have not yet pulled out of Stonewall’s event this year despite their welcome condemnation of the ‘bigot’ award. They are in our view still associated with Stonewall’s name-calling. But the refusal of Coutts and PWC to condemn the ‘bigot’ award is quite staggering.’
