Skip to content

Peter Tatchell right about something important

Having recent posted to agree with Giles Fraser (with whom I often disagree) I thought Peter Tatchell deserved the credit for saying something right. The following is copied verbatim from Peter Hitchens’ Mail on Sunday blog.


Peter Tatchell (again) is Right. The ‘Gay Cake’ case is about liberty, not discrimination

Not for the first time, I must praise Peter Tatchell, the militant campaigner for the rights of homosexuals, for his courage and honesty. Mr Tatchell was badly beaten some years ago in an attempt to protest against Robert Mugabe’s policies, an act which required considerable physical bravery. And he took part willingly in a Channel Four programme I made some years ago about increasing threats to freedom of speech, criticising police for heavy handed treatment of a couple who had expressed unfashionable views about homosexuality. Mr Tatchell loathed what the couple had said. yet he defended them. He understood the basic principle of liberty, that you can defend someone’s freedom to say something you don’t like.

So many campaigners for the fashionable causes of the Left simply don’t get this, but Mr Tatchell does, and his good example deserves our praise.

Now he has publicly changed his mind on the case of the ‘Gay Cake’ (this affair is explained at length below)


Mr Tatchell says:

His key words are: ‘… the court erred by ruling that Lee was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation and political opinions. His cake request was refused not because he was gay, but because of the message he asked for.’ (my emphasis-SH)

He also goes to the heart of the matter when he says : ‘This finding of political discrimination against Lee sets a worrying precedent. Northern Ireland’s laws against discrimination on the grounds of political opinion were framed in the context of decades of conflict. They were designed to heal the sectarian divide by preventing the denial of jobs, housing and services to people because of their politics. There was never an intention that this law should compel people to promote political ideas with which they disagreed.’

And he rightly issues this warning about the implications of the judgement: ‘The judge concluded that service providers are required to facilitate any “lawful” message, even if they have a conscientious objection. This raises the question: should Muslim printers be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed? Or Jewish ones publish the words of a Holocaust denier? Or gay bakers accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs? If the Ashers verdict stands it could, for example, encourage far-right extremists to demand that bakeries and other service providers facilitate the promotion of anti-migrant and anti-Muslim opinions. It would leave businesses unable to refuse to decorate cakes or print posters with bigoted messages. In my view, it is an infringement of freedom to require businesses to aid the promotion of ideas to which they conscientiously object. Discrimination against people should be unlawful, but not against ideas.

I agree wholeheartedly, and made a similar point some time ago(see the end of this article).

Most of you will know that  a bakery in Northern Ireland, owned and run by Christians, was taken to court by Gareth Lee, with the assistance of the Northern Ireland ‘Equality Commission’ for refusing to bake a cake iced with (among other things) a contentious statement of opinion, namely  ‘Support Gay Marriage’ .

Here’s an approving summary of the judgement by Joshua Rozenberg (who I cannot resist mentioning here is married to Melanie Phillips, the commentator for ‘The Times’ and panellist on ‘The Moral Maze’ on BBC Radio 4, who many people think of as a conservative, but who is (or at least was) inclined to insist that she is really a liberal distressed by the views of her fellow-liberals).

I think Mr Rozenberg is too happy about this . The Judge’s view that ‘the correct comparison would have been with a heterosexual person ordering a cake that said “support heterosexual marriage”’is gravely mistaken. The comparison would be with an openly and actively sexual liberationist baker being asked to bake a cake which said ‘Gay marriage is wrong’ or ‘Gay sex is sinful’.  I would absolutely support such a baker’s freedom to refuse such an order. (my emphasis-SH)

I’ve always thought the court’s attitude was plain silly.  The bakers say they didn’t know (which can’t be proved)  or care (which could be proved easily by the same person asking them to bake a cake without any contentious message on it) about the sexuality of the person giving the order, and would have baked him a cake, as such, without hesitation.

The full judgement is here for those interested[2015]%20NICty%202/j_j_2015NICty2Final.htm

There’s a curious passage in this (which I think Mr Rozenberg doesn‘t get quite right  when he says ‘Brownlie found that Ashers must have known that Lee was gay.’) . The official case report says: ‘ it must have been abundantly clear during those discussions that the plaintiff supported gay marriage and that in all the circumstances the 2nd defendant must either consciously or unconsciously have had the knowledge or perception that the plaintiff was gay and/or was associated with others who are gay.’

Well, yes, indeed, but it is quite possible to support the causes of homosexual equality without being homosexual. Next,  this does not give any reason to assume that, even if the person involved was himself homosexual, this fact influenced the bakers’ decision.  Our knowledge, especially our unconscious knowledge, must not be assumed to have led us into an act of unfairness unless this has been proved by other means.  I should have thought the only proof of this would have been a refusal by Ashers to bake a cake, without any message on it, ordered by someone whom they knew to be homosexual. If there is any evidence of Ashers having done this, I have not seen or heard of it.

That would surely need to be proven in other ways before anyone could assert it. In which event, the case revolves not around the fair treatment of homosexuals, which the law plainly requires – but about the freedom to decline to publish or endorse opinions with which we disagree, which is fundamental to freedom of speech and the press.


Imagine if ‘The Guardian’ could be forced by law to publish a column by me. If you think that ludicrous, then you must say the same of this judgement, with its wholly mistaken concentration on the sale of the cake, and its apparent inability to see the role of the bakers as publishers. How many cakes bearing contentious messages about controversial issues, I wonder, are ordered in UK bakers in any given year?

I strongly believe that the complainant could easily have found  other bakers willing to bake the required cake with the required declaration, so it is hard to cast Ashers (who as far as I know make their conservative Christian position publicly clear) in the role of censors.  This could only be the case if they held a total monopoly of cake-baking which they certainly do not.  The issue was about one person being forced to endorse in public an opinion which he did not support.

The proposed cake took the form of sponge topped with sugar, but it was for legal purposes a poster or placard in the form of a cake, which Ashers were being required to print and publish, albeit in the form of sugar.

If the law can compel any printer or publisher or indeed any person, to print and publish sentiments with which he or she does not agree, then an important liberty is at an end. (my emphasis-SH) For this purpose, Ashers were a publisher.

In some ways it is even more important than the freedom to say what you want. Authoritarian societies, which are bad, silence opposition. This is evil, but still leaves people able to maintain private independence without having to make public self-abasements. Totalitarian societies, which are worse, require their citizens to shout and speak and sing slogans supporting their rulers, and to display flags on their homes endorsing those rulers. I have seen this done. It makes the flesh creep. Such requirements eat at the soul. I have always remembered Christabel Bielenberg’s trick (recounted in her book about living as an Englishwoman married to a German in the Hitler state, ‘The Past is Myself’) for avoiding saying ‘Heil Hitler’.  She would say ‘Drei Liter!’ (‘Three Litres!’) so emphatically and with such feeling that nobody noticed. Those who read the account many years later may have smiled, but I always thought it a very serious matter. This is how you remain free inside.

As I wrote here in July 2014: ‘I don’t care about same-sex marriage. It doesn’t matter. It’s the collapse of heterosexual marriage that’s important. But it does matter when triumphalist sexual revolutionaries force their opponents to act against their consciences. So please note this bit of the row about the Belfast Christian bakers who declined to bake a gay-themed cake, whose icing would have proclaimed support for same-sex nuptials.  Another baker, by the way, happily complied with the order.

But that’s not enough. The Christian bakers may now be pursued through the courts. I cannot see how this can be called a free country if the law has any say in such matters. If you can be forced by law to publish a view you disagree with on a cake, then presumably you can be forced to do so in a book, a newspaper or a TV programme.’ (emphasis mine-SH)

Mr Tatchell is right. The judgement was mistaken<<<<<

post copied and pasted without alteration from Peter Hitchen’s blog.


Was the judgment ‘mistaken’? I would prefer to say that the judgment was profoundly unjust, discriminatory, prejudicial and tyrannical. I doubt it was mistaken in intent (even if mistaken in law), since there is a clear and persistent anti Christian agenda in this country, which is well served by this wicked judgment.



Giles Fraser gets something right


I have sometimes criticised the Reverend Giles Fraser harshly here, and I don’t intend to back pedal over that concerning specific issues. However, my attention was drawn to something he just wrote in the Guardian, and I read it. Fair’s fair, Fraser wrote something very good here and I applaud him for doing so.

He wrote about the senior Nazi Adolf Eichman, who was hanged for his role in organising the mass transport of Jews to be exterminated in Hitler’s ‘Final Solution’.

The item here is well worth reading in full, its not very long



In prison awaiting execution for his crimes, begging for mercy, a mercy denied to his victims, he wrote to the Israeli Prime Minister in a letter that has just been released…..

“There is a need to draw a line between the leaders responsible and the people like me forced to serve as mere instruments in the hands of the leaders,” the presidency quoted Eichmann’s letter as saying.

“I was not a responsible leader, and as such do not feel myself guilty,” the German wrote.

“I am not able to recognise the court’s ruling as just, and I ask, Your Honour Mr President, to exercise your right to grant pardons, and order that the death penalty not be carried out.”

The letter was signed and dated: “Adolf Eichmann Jerusalem, May 29, 1962.”

He was denied clemency and hanged at about midnight on 31 May.

If Eichmann died without coming to God on his knees begging for mercy, as seems probable from the lack of insight and genuine repentance in this letter, and if Jesus was telling the truth, then he went to Hell where he will suffer for all eternity. One of his severest torments will be that of knowing that he was wrong and could have received forgiveness if only he had recognised this fact and acknowledged it. It was not the Israeli Prime Minister he should have been begging for mercy, it was his Creator.

Fraser references a commentary on Eichmann which coined the phrase ‘the banality of evil’. He makes the point that moral evil does not always come with the “central-casting Gothic intensity of a horror movie”  but could be bureaucratic and technical.

Giles Fraser concludes by writing “… the moral message of his story remains profoundly unsettling: if ordinary people were capable of such great evil, then, given the right circumstances, so are the rest of us.”

If Eichmann, who on one level was a boring ordinary little man like so many of the rest of us could be seduced, by a charismatic leader riding the spirit of the age into the kind of evil that leads to this sort of thing


…then as Fraser suggests, so (in certain circumstances and unless we actively recognise and resist moral evil even if it becomes very costly to do so) could you or I.

Moral evil exists, ideas have consequences, we are responsible for our choices, and we shall all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ. Something which the Nazis, like other secular tyrants, denied. Incorrectly, as they now know.

God have mercy on all us sinners.




Robert Spencer on the threat to free speech

Robert Spencer lives under armed guard in a secure secret location, and (disgracefully) is banned from entering the United Kingdom. Muslims also want to kill him because of what he has said about Islam.

Worth a listen.


New Kenya human fossil finds prove…what?

The recently announced discovery of the bones of some victims of violence has, as usual, added to the proclaimed ‘overwhelming mountain of evidence’ for human evolution. The usual pattern is that some well funded researchers from a prestigious institution dig something up and fit it into the evolutionary narrative.

The discovery was made near Lake Turkana in Kenya in 2012, but was only just announced.


Under the headline

“The Earliest Evidence of Violent Human Conflict Has Been Discovered”

we read about sad and sorry evidence of human brutality that a Cambridge team of ‘Evolutionary’ researchers, see an item in The Independent here . The discovery, and of course its interpretation, is also mentioned in Science Daily.

Some 27 sets of remains have been examined, there may be far more. One of the bashed in skulls belonged to a pregnant woman, her baby’s bones contained within her abdomen. Other victims had been tied up.

“The discovery of this event was made by researchers at Cambridge University’s Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, who studied the victim’s fossilized bones to determine if this violence could be a precursor to what we know today as warfare.

“The Nataruk massacre may have resulted from an attempt to seize resources – territory, women, children, food stored in pots – whose value was similar to those of later food-producing agricultural societies, among whom violent attacks on settlements became part of life,” said Cambridge’s Dr Marta Mirazon Lahr, who led the Nataruk study, published in the journal Nature.

What do these remains really tell us? I’m afraid that they tell us that our ancestors were as wicked as we are. Does this confirm the evolutionary account in any way? The most obvious thing about these remains is that they are of creatures who were fully human, and that they had been violently killed by fellow humans using weapons including obsidian (fragments of which were found in skull fractures). The rest is 100% speculation.

Interestingly, while they are claimed to be 10,000 years old, the weapons used were stone. But according to Wikipaedia the so called ‘Stone Age’ was thought to have lasted from from 500,000 years ago to about 25-50,000 years ago. So why wasn’t the headline ‘Dates of Stone age radically revised-humankind much more recent than we thought!’? Just an aside-but the fact is that these media-wide announcements are about 10% fact and 90% interpretation. And its always an evolutionary interpretation, whether the facts point that way or not. As with the Rosetta comet probe (see earlier posts) the fact of evolution is assumed and the evolutionary interpretation of the data settled before it has even been examined.

The bare bones (no pun intended) of this story is that our ancestors were murdering each other during the whole of human history. But in fact this is exactly what the Bible tells us, from the first pages of the miserable story of man’s rebellion against our Creator God. There was no squabble over resources or fighting for territory or breeding rights in Eden, until Adam threw it all away by his wicked, ungrateful, selfish  deluded act of disobedience against the God who had so generously given him everything.

We read in Genesis chapter 4 that Cain killed his brother Abel out of spite and jealousy, although there were plenty of resources for both of them. We read of the disproportionate and unreasonable violence of Lamech in Genesis 4:23-24, and the appalling words of Genesis 6:5-13 where God laments that humans had corrupted their ways and filled the whole earth with violence.

So, the lake Turkana finding validates the Genesis account. Tragically. It certainly doesn’t add any support to the idea that men and women came from dirty water via worms, fish, frogs, birds and ape like ancestors. Nor does it give much support to the idea that we are by nature peace loving and mutually supportive animals who only need the right political system to get along just fine.

The Bible says we are sinners in need of a Saviour who can reconcile us to God, and thereby to one another. Thankfully, God has appointed just such a Saviour, Jesus of Nazareth. Call on Him while there is still time, because as He said, towards the close of the age it is going to be just like the days of Noah, with violence multiplying in all the earth as evil men go from bad to worse, and then the end will come.

Luke’s Gospel, chapter 17 verses 25-27

But first He (Jesus) must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. “And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.…


BBC culture exposed as secretive and biased-again


News about the disgraceful sexual abuse of women and children by ‘National Treasure’ Jimmy Saville over decades at the heart of our tax funded national broadcaster continues to plumb new depths. The recent report from the enquiry by Justice Janet Smith (see also here) (*) makes it clear what everyone suspected, that very large numbers of people at the BBC had a pretty good idea what was going on but dared not say anything about it for fear of losing their jobs. The BBC was evidently more concerned about its reputation and privileges than the safety and well being of vulnerable children.


Jimmy Saville raped children as young as 9 while working for the BBC, and got away with it. (**)


And now the truth, or some of it, is coming out, suggesting a high-handed culture of corporate denial and collective cover up at every level in the BBC. How else could Jimmy Saville have sexually abused literally hundreds of victims in every BBC setting and building he ever worked in and ‘nobody knew‘?

Much more could be said, but remembering the main focus of this blog-the massive lie of the Darwin Mythos (fundamental to atheism and secularism), of which the BBC is one of the major proponents and defenders on a global, not just a national stage, I ask readers to think this through. We now know that the grossest sexual abuse, of women and children, something which is detested more than almost any other crime in this country, was taking place FOR DECADES at the heart of our national broadcaster. We also now know that it was at best undetected (can you believe that?) at worst covered up and denied. May we not therefore conclude that there is a certain proud, self satisfied culture at the BBC which assumes its perfections, looks after its own and is impervious to criticism?


Saville on BBC Top of the Pops in 1976

The BBC is committed (amongst other things opposed to a Christian world view) to liberal sexual values, and to maintaining its highly privileged position as our national broadcaster. It decides which stories run and which do not, who gets a hostile interview and who gets an easy ride, which playwrights and ‘comedians’ to employ, which scandals to investigate and which to downplay or deny. It’s influence on our culture, education and even lawmaking is incalculable. It doesn’t give a mouse’s fart for the opinions of people like me.

The BBC has a multi- £billion budget paid for by compulsory licence fee (a tax by another name) sets the news and cultural agenda and is pretty well unacountable. It is run by a mutually appointed elite whose world view runs from liberal left to hard line Marxist. They give wide open platforms to sexual revolutionaries like David Bowie ( a very high proportion of its staff are homosexuals) and hard line anti-Christians like John Cleese, Richard Dawkins, Marcus Brigstocke and Brian Cox while denying a platform to anyone who dares question any of its leftist presuppositions. BBC jobs are only advertised in the strongly left wing Guardian.

The BBC worships Darwin and allows no awkward questions, ever. It weaves misrepresentation and abuse of the intelligent design and scientific creationist position into it’s documentaries, news reporting, quiz programmes, dramas and comedies as routine, but has never, ever, even once given a fair opportunity to a critic of evolution to present the scientific case against it. As I have written elsewhere, they have given platforms to apologists for Irish Republican and Jihadist violence and to the tiny minority of opponents of vaccination, but never to advocates of Intelligent Design.

If the above sounds like ‘sore loser’ conspiracist whining, then look again at the Saville affair, about which we are still being told by the arrogant, self serving, unaccountable BBC hierarchy ‘Nobody knew, and how could we have known?’ If they are able to get away with their protestations of innocence over perhaps the worst serial sex abuser in the history of this country, then how much easier for them to deny their anti-Christian and anti-questioning of Darwin bias?

The Saville affair exposes the culture of impunity at the heart of our national broadcaster. Ask yourself this: if mass rape and sexual abuse of women and children over several decades was covered up and denied, how much easier is it for them to cover up and deny their unacountability over matters harder to prove?

But we shall all give account to our Creator.



(**) If Jesus was telling the truth then the rapist liar Saville has not got away with it but will answer for his deeds to the Creator of the universe. Of course, if atheism is true, then he has. May God grant the grace of repentance to all of us sinners that we may take the free offer of forgiveness while it remains open. It is appointed to men to die once, and after that comes judgement. Hebrews 9:27


They trashed the place

A recent Christmastime news story that started out heart warming went sour.

A kind person took pity on some poor homeless people and paid for them to stay somewhere nice over Christmas. But they despised the gift and trashed the place, causing £1,000 worth of damage.

The window was smashed and has to be replaced, someone had tried to rip the TV off the wall breaking the screen in the process and the carpet was so badly damaged it needs to be replaced.  The couple destroyed the mattress and stole the duvet. It took two members of staff two hours to clear the destroyed hotel room.

Read more:



Very easy to say ‘See, that’s what happens when you try to do good to people who are basically scum. Stuff your politically correct excuse making, these people are homeless scroungers because that’s all they’re fit for, they have no conscience, no gratitude, no morals, they’re just plain scum. Let them starve in the gutter, or better still let’s put them in some kind of lock up where they can pay for their misdeeds!’

Easy to say, and what’s worse, probably containing a significant amount of truth.

But friends, isn’t that exactly how we have all, to greater or lesser extent, behaved towards our Maker?

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, tells us that a loving God created our ancestors in His image and placed them in a perfectly good environment where they lacked nothing. And then they trashed the place in utter ingratitude. Saint Paul refers to this wicked, treacherous ingratitude at the beginning of his great theological argument in his letter to the Romans. In chapter 1 verse 18-22 he explains how we humans are all contaminated by sin which is linked to our wilful disobedience and denial of our Creator. And that as a result of our culpable disobedience, including our inexcusable unbelief, we are subject to the severest wrath, and deservedly so.

Thankfully, Paul goes on to explain that we can escape this wrath though what the wonderful Jesus of Nazareth, God’s Holy One, has done for us. Romans 6:23 says ‘For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is everlasting life in Jesus Christ.’


PS I have in the past given to street beggars but decided to stop doing this after the advice of many well meaning people that it will usually go on drink and drugs. Instead my wife and I make an annual donation of a sum commensurate with our seasonal spend on special food and drink to the Salvation Army and St Martins in the Fields charity which work with the homeless. Both are Christian charities but help needy people regardless of their faith.


David Bowie on the next world


No further comment.


David Bowie, rest in peace?


Last year I watched a TV documentary on the life and career of David Bowie, who has now died. I made some notes and started writing something for this blog, but was distracted by work and other stuff and did not complete or post it. In view of the fact that Bowie has now entered an eternal state, and the strong media and public reaction to him, I thought I would complete and post the item.

The noted american academic and social commentator Camille Paglia  had a lot to say about Bowie. The following are some extracts from my notes, Paglia’s words and my comments.

“Ziggy Stardust took the 60s into the 70s-introduced the idea of anonymous sex, sex without consequences.”

Except that, as the world discovered, there were very significant consequences. Ideas always have consequences, actions those ideas lead to even more so.

“Bowie saw himself as a shaman”

A shaman is a  pagan priest who may employ chants, sacred ritual and drugs to get people to perceive reality differently in the name of false gods. Jim Morrison, another musical revolutionary, saw himself as a shaman too.

(cut to Bowie commenting on Paglia)

“I found my character-one man against the world. Ziggy is this kind of mythological priest figures-the androgony of tribal priests, who in history were androgynous. I didn’t know this until I read Camille Paglia.”

Back to Camille Paglia  ” The 70s was an era when area when promiscuity for its own sake had never been so universal since the days of the Roman Empire. Ziggy stardust was like the book of revelation-an apocalypse about to occur…..What  Bowie/Ziggy did that no-one had done before was make himself into an idol to be worshipped . (my bold. Paglia’s words)

I seem to recall that sexual and other decadence didn’t work out too well in the end for the once great Roman civilisation. Very clearly, Bowie and his more thoughtful commentators did see him as a prophet of the sexual revolution. A revolution that has been building for some 70 years and which Bowie did so much to advance.

Bowie’s appearance on the Dick Cavett show was discussed. He appeared to be stoned, and most likely had been given his notorious drug use (as freely admitted later in the film). The question arose  ‘Did he want the whole of America to think he was out of his mind on cocaine?’  Yes, apparently  he did, and it worked. He was a consummate performer-he looked stoned in the interview but performed perfectly. And the people loved it.

Bowie, as all commentators have said,  frequently reinvented himself. After Ziggy had turned his platform boots in, Bowie settled for a time in Los Angeles. The drug scene in Los Angeles nearly killed him, returned to adoring crowds in London  in 1976  decided to work with Brian Eno whom he found “A soul mate.”

‘The Station to Station album was influenced by German techno band Kraftwerk’s ‘randomness’  He said I tried to apply a lot of those randomness to my music.’

He said ‘I was psychically damaged…trying to get what I was understanding into music. ‘ This was a clear reference to drugs, as others like his guitarist  Earl slick, said. ‘Everybody was on drugs, we were all out there, it worked.’

In plain terms, much of Bowie’s inspiration came from pagan philosophy, randomness and messing with his brain chemistry, and immersing himself in a culture where others were doing the same.

(Brian Eno is an outspoken atheist who endorsed Richard Dawkins’ ‘The God Delusion’ and has a particular loathing for creationism as he made clear a few years ago when given a platform by the BBC.)

Eno said ‘What I think excited us was the desire to go where no-one had been before’ Bowie returned to Europe (Berlin) and the  ‘Low’ album was produced. It was half vocal, half instrumental, wholly experimental. Most critics didn’t like it. One said  ‘Its great, but I don’t know what he’s talking about’.

During this Berlin/Eno period, Bowie produced one of his best loved songs, the anthem ‘Heroes’. He said of the song ‘… you can overcome some incredible odds=I knew I’d put myself in some dangerous positions….without drugs I was still writing very well-it was important for me to discover this, but it took quite  a long time…there was a light at the end of the tunnel.’

The song ‘Ashes to ashes’ was then discussed. I remember the interest this aroused at the time (discussed on yesterday’s radio) where his iconic hero Major Tom from the first hit single Space Oddity was revisited-and the hero turned out to be a junkie!

Bowie said ‘Major Tom became a hero … I wanted to make it into a sort of ring a ring of roses we all fall down thing about it. Regarding the famous video, he said ‘I want to be a clown on the beach’

The biggest cliché about Bowie is that he was ‘Always re inventing himself.’ It is my settled conviction that many clichés contain a grain  of truth, or more than a grain. But is constant reinvention really a virtue in itself, regardless of what is being invented?

Scary monsters album included the song ‘Fashion’ which includes the words

‘It’s a brand new dance but I don’t know its name’

apparently the song was about the way people get dictated to by fashion

‘turn right, turn left, we are the goon squad and we’re coming to town beep beep’.

Was Bowie being ironic, ‘random’ or was he laughing at his audience’s willingness to follow him? He was a very potent fashion icon at whose concerts many people dressed up wearing hair styles and clothes just like his. A veritable fashion icon, or perhaps Pied Piper? People followed him and imitated his behaviour. A heavy responsibility.

The fascinating documentary concluded by saying that Bowie had always made a very good choice of collaborators and producers for different stages of his career . With ‘Let’s dance’ he said he had tried to make something ‘more humanistic and less nihilistic and one dimensional than the music I’d been working on in recent years’

‘Over the next 20 years Bowie produced 11 more albums, in 2007 he disappeared from the public arena’.

And now in 2016 he has gone to meet his Maker, to render an account.

Documentary ended with the 1st stanza of performance of ‘5 years’ from the Ziggy Stardust album,  which I will admit is my favourite Bowie song (not that I have heard more than a dozen of his songs, I listen to the radio but never bought an album of his)

“The newsman wept as he told us, earth was really dying

Cried so much that his face was wet, I knew he was not lying.”


Anyway, much has been said about the late David Bowie, mostly pretty emotional and full of praise, no doubt much of it true as regards his talent and energy. Among the elegies I have heard over the last 2 days since I first heard the news on breakfast radio around 7.15 am on Monday, many people including senior politicians and public homosexuals have said how wonderful it was that Bowie did so much to help people celebrate ‘diverse sexuality’. This was an achievement, to be sure, but was it one which increased the sum of human happiness in the long run?

It seems likely that a lot of people had a lot of unconventional sex inspired by the ‘new’ sexual ethic that people like Bowie helped to create. A sexual ethic emphatically opposed to Biblical norms. A sexual ethic, which as we have heard, was similar to that embraced by the dying Roman Empire. A sexual ethic that gave us AIDS, abortion, fatherless children and family breakdown on a previously unprecedented scale. This aspect of David Bowie’s legacy is not of course being discussed.

Nobody is supposed to speak ill of the dead, and probably if I had posted this as intended last year it would have included some stronger criticism, but one fact that we can all agree on is that after a famous and revolutionary career in performing and recording arts, David Bowie has now died. As we all must when our appointed time comes.

And like all of us, he will have to account to his Maker as to how he used the gifts and opportunities that were given to him.

May God have mercy on all us sinners.



Banning the Bible as hate speech comes a little closer

As 2016 begins, the end of free speech and free thought in my country draws a little nearer. See this item and links from it to get the details-while you still can.

Of course, we still have free speech, but it must be ‘tolerant’. We are free to believe, as long as what we believe is appropriate. We are free to think, as long as we don’t think the wrong things.We have freedom of religion, but it must be tolerant and inclusive. And the meaning of these terms are decided by politicians and lawyers, many of whom (like former Director of Public Prosecutions now Labour MP Keir Starmer) are clearly committed left wing activists.

Have we really forgotten George Orwell’s dire predictions? He wrote the dystopian novel ‘1984’ as a warning, not an instruction manual. Anyway…

In my Kindle novel ‘Darwin’s Adders: A Chronicle of Pagan England 2089’, the storyteller (*) describes a succesful conspiracy to get the Bible banned as hate speech. Christian literature such as C S Lewis’s Narnia stories are also banned. There is a short passage describing how Lewis’ beloved children’s stories came to be outlawed.

It wasn’t censorship, oh no, free speech was still allowed, but under the new Freedom from All Religious Terror (FART) Act,  and enhanced Health and Safety and Child Protection, plus Mental Hygiene laws, it became possible to sue authors and publishers for the supposed adverse consequences of people having read their books.

In the novel, a man described as a ‘sturdy fornicator’ and a relaxed atheist had his equanimity and sense of self worth disturbed by reading C S Lewis’s Christian apologetics. Lewis’ logic had pointed to the fact that we are all sinners and subject to the wrath of God. As a result of reading this he became depressed and tried to kill himself with a paracetamol overdose (why he hadn’t rather repented his sins and turned to Christ as Lewis recommended wasn’t clear, but, hey, life is messy).

Anyway, he survived but needed a liver transplant and anti-rejection drugs for life. He sued the publisher under the FART and Mental Hygeine laws on the grounds that he had been a perfectly happy atheist before he read ‘Mere Christianity’ and that Lewis’ irrational, bigoted words had caused mental disturbance and extreme anguish by temporarily persuading him that there might really be a judgmental sovereign creator God. He also sued for the £millions he would so obviously have made in the successful career as a songwriter and activist that he was so sure he would have had but for the unfortunate accident. As a result, C S Lewis’ books and others like them were no longer stocked, even by charity stores and jumble sales.

It wasn’t a ban, and speech was still free, but as the slogan says ‘error has no rights‘. This along with other slogans like ‘There is no freedom to pollute minds’ andyoung people have the right to be free of other people’s bad ideaswere often used by prosecuting lawyers.

Friends, time is running out. If Jesus spoke truth in the Matthew 24 passage about the last days (**) then ultimately the doom foretold will fall on a wicked, Christ-rejecting world. But we are called on to watch and pray, and the promise stands firms ‘He who endures to the end will be saved.’ But this is not a time for silence. The government has offered the chance to comment on its latest proposals to limit freedom of belief and speech (of course they don’t call it that).

Very likely they will ignore any protests, but two things are certain. If these new proposals pass into law, anti Christian activists will lose no time turning them into weapons against the Church (remember the dreadful Leslie Pilkington case in which an honest Christian psychological therapist was stalked , targeted and destroyed by a lying, sneaking homosexual activist). It is equally certain that mosques and maddrassahs  will be left alone in the curious alliance of leftists/secularists and Muslims against what’s left of our cultural Christianity.

Please read this item and consider if you can take any action. Apart from anything else, start memorising Bible passages. You may need to.

The government seems to be proposing to mandate a compulsory set of values by law, a set of values which it seems, without any mandate, to have determined as ‘British’. One of the activities prohibited in the statement is ‘calling for the death of members of our armed forces’. OK, I agree, but couldn’t that be prosecuted under the old established laws of treason and/or incitement to murder? Also and apparently equally forbidden is to lack ‘respect and tolerance’ of the beliefs of others. The terms are not defined. So is it now compulsory for me to respect Islam? This would be a profound violation of the 1st amendment in the USA. Of course, we have no written constitutional right to freedom of speech and belief here in Britain.

I am extremely lacking in respect for systems of belief which stand in opposition to what I understand as God’s word. Readers of this blog may have noticed. Am I now to be criminalised for believing, and saying, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Holy One of God? For if He is, as Christians believe, then all systems of belief which deny or fail to affirm this truth are dangerously wrong, therefore not worthy of respect (tolerance is another matter).

l am amazed to see so little concern being expressed about this massive assault on our traditional rights and liberties.


(*) The storyteller, i.e. narrator of the novel (mine or any other) is not necessarily the person whose name appears on the book as author. He is a creation like the other characters. The storyteller and the author obviously have an intimate relationship and may share opinions, but they are not the same person.

(**) He did.




Trump the chump

It says something, nothing good, about the USA that the rich moron Donald Chump could even possibly become a Presidential candidate.


trumpWhat have the American people done to deserve this? er….that would take another post, a long one, but greed on an epic scale, tens of millions of abortions plus the stupid and wicked 2003 invasion of Iraq would be enough to curse a nation. Anyway….

His dumb assed ill considered dog whistle opportunistic comments about banning all Muslims from entering the USA has predictably (well, anyone with an ounce of sense could have predicted it) unleashed a massive on line shitstorm including a petition which by now will have gained half a million signatures in Britain to ban him from entering the UK. (leftists have little sense of irony. Muslims are very tactical, the petition could easily reach a million even without multiple voting and false identities)

PS there are well over 3 million Muslims in the UK and they are VERY keen to grow their population, not least my importation of teenage brides from Bangladesh and Pakistan, bringing elderly relatives over for free NHS care etc) and I can see why they wouldn’t appreciate Trump’s comments.

The major effect of Trump the chump’s crump is to make it CONSIDERABLY more difficult to have a calm discussion about the effects of the rapidly increasing Muslim population of previously Christian countries. The leftists (including of course liberals like Theresa May and David Cameron, as well as the Labour party who own the Muslim block vote in numerous inner city wards and constituencies) plus lots of decent people who just don’t want to be seen as offensive are now united against any ATTEMPT to DISCUSS the issues that face us.


And those issues are very serious. At the least, we should be examining the testimony of history and asking the question-since a straightforward reading of the Quran is entirely incompatible with both secularism and Christianity, can Western Civilisation survive a large percentage (say 20%) of Muslim citizens? How well governed, free and prosperous are Islamic nations on the whole? How much of our present technology, liberty and freedom do we owe to values that are incompatible with Islam?

The idiot Trump has joined forces with the much more cunning Obama ‘Christianity is to blame for abortion clinic shooting but Islam nothing to do with San Bernadino massacre’ and UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn to make it much more difficult to have a reasoned discussion about those issues.


Mirth and Melancholy

Comment, comedy and capers for the faithful, faithless and fallible

Guido Fawkes

Parliamentary plots and conspiracy

SC Skillman Blog

Inside the mind of a writer News

The latest news on and the WordPress community.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29 other followers