tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37329199764427353822024-03-05T05:19:57.501+00:00Stephen's Liberal JournalThe blog and musings of Stephen Glenn Liberal Democrat activist, blogger and three time Westminster candidate.
Content © Stephen Glenn 2005-2023Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.comBlogger3821125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-66682388170438548352023-03-29T16:02:00.001+01:002023-03-29T16:02:11.234+01:00The Time I Met Paul O'Grady and Lily Savage at the Same Time<p> Back in the 1990s I worked for H. Samuel and for three years of that time I was based in the store (no longer within the group) that was positioned at the Piccadilly Circus end of Shaftesbury Avenue. It was the flagship store of the chain at the time, with the famous semi-circle window up in what was our ring sizing and buffering room and being right under the neon lights. It also of course was right in the heart of things.</p><p>Right in the heart of the hustle and bustle of the City of Westminster. Shops, Government and Theatre land were all walkable. Although our branch didn't shut until 10pm we ofter got a last minute rush of customers after the theatres got out.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8jAC3-CEIpakM05MVOvhFzZi3TPxaQBaSCgPAZZwIbrxhnShqiQOZm1yCr0ywHya7_lRVkL_YmnxHMO78FhWxIbQN2EM4i8IUjyr1TBOc3LqwdYkcY8hBDQE_UV-CmBZvpi1X8esiiN_0mCF1V2AaCw-WKNQ1E6ZlN45ZNKbRqfi2t1_6Qn6FQtkRVQ/s539/prisoner.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="539" data-original-width="372" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8jAC3-CEIpakM05MVOvhFzZi3TPxaQBaSCgPAZZwIbrxhnShqiQOZm1yCr0ywHya7_lRVkL_YmnxHMO78FhWxIbQN2EM4i8IUjyr1TBOc3LqwdYkcY8hBDQE_UV-CmBZvpi1X8esiiN_0mCF1V2AaCw-WKNQ1E6ZlN45ZNKbRqfi2t1_6Qn6FQtkRVQ/s320/prisoner.jpg" width="221" /></a></div><br />Further along Shaftesbury Avenue during that time a musical version of Prisioner Cell Block H was having a run. A very well dressed man in a suit entered early one afternoon and went straight over to the costume jewellery cabinet. When he say what he wanted there was a familiar Birkenhead accent that called over to me:<p></p><p></p><blockquote>"Excuse me! I'd like to take that red necklace and earings to match please."</blockquote><p></p><p>It was not the most expensive sale I ever processed in that store, that would undoubtledly be the three times I sold the matching his and hers Raymond Weil Parsifal watches which at the time were a neat £2,750. But this was the time I took the credit card of Mr P O'Grady knowing full well that these items although going to be worn by someone else were going to grace his neck and ears. He had obviously dropped in before heading up the Queen's Theatre (now the Sondheim) to get Lily ready or her staring role in Prisoner Cell Block H.</p><p><b>RIP Paul O'Grady 1955 -2023</b></p>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-70272498644556418442023-03-11T19:25:00.004+00:002023-03-11T19:25:52.110+00:00Is Government asylum policy "fair and right"?<p> So Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has broken the ministerial silence since the BBC asked Gary Lineker to step back from presenting <i>Match of the Day</i>. In doing so he says that Linker "was a great footballer and is a talented presenter" before going on to say that that he believes that the government's policy is "fair and right?</p><p>The question though should be is it?</p><p>Firstly we need to rebuff the phrase branded about claiming there are illegal asylum seekers. The Refugee Council <a href="https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/the-truth-about-asylum/" target="_blank">point out</a>:</p><blockquote>
There is no such thing as an ‘illegal’ or ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim</blockquote><p>The UK is a signatory of that Convention. This is the Convention was actually in part drafted by Winston Churchill. It is also something that is enshrined into the European Convention on Human Rights. It was the ECHR that when presenting her policy to the House of Commons the Home Secretary Suella Braverman wrote:</p><p></p><blockquote>I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migrants Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed to the Bill.</blockquote><p></p><p>Herein lies problem number one. We are already calling those that arrive my small boats Illegal Migrants, see the Refugee Council above. But also this Government knowingly wants to proceed when it could break a Convention drafted with British input. <br /><br />Maybe we can rule out that the Bill is going to be right on that basis.<br /><br />As for is it fair, we need to look at how anyone claim asylum in the UK under the Bill. Let us return to the Refugee Council.<br /><br /></p><blockquote>It is recognised in the 1951 Convention that people fleeing persecution may have to use irregular means in order to escape and claim asylum in another country – there is no legal way to travel to the UK for the specific purpose of seeking asylum.</blockquote>Yet the Government are saying that the provisions of the Bill will not affect people who seek a legal route into the UK to claim asylum, such routes do not exist.<br /><br />The Bill also aims to detain those that reach these shores by small boat without trial, without access to a lawyer for the first 28 days, or the courts, and then deport them, with no legal right to appeal and to be barred for ever from entering the UK.<div> <br />However, arbitrarily depriving an individual of their liberty is prohibited under international human rights law. Article 9 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights decrees that "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile"; that is, no individual, regardless of circumstances, is to be deprived of their liberty or exiled from their country without having first committed an actual criminal offense against a legal statute, and the government cannot deprive an individual of their liberty without proper due process of law. <br /><br />So not looking very fair or very right. Also, before I get apologists saying but these are all international treatings and conventions remember one thing. In the shadow of World War II it was Britain that was at the forefront of drafting and writing the conventions and treaties that are mentioned here. This was done to prevent a nation treating other humans in a lesser way. At the moment the UK Government is steering us into a clear breach of so much international convention we are heading to being a pariah state on a par with Russia, North Korea et al.</div>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-20061848882601542102023-03-11T14:37:00.002+00:002023-03-11T14:37:34.417+00:00Not just close to the language of 1930s Germany<p> So the outrage over Gary Lineker's comments that some of the language used by the Home Secretary to launch and defend her asylum policy has wreaked havoc to this weekend's football schedule on the BBC. Now this is the thing, Gary only compared that language to 1930s Germany, anyone with a little knowledge of the diaries, biographies from pre-war British politicians will be able to point out to something a little closer to home.<br /><br /></p><p>There are three types of sources we can learn from history. First there are straight forward history texts, these are often written long enough after the event to sanitise some of the comment. Then is biography of those involved, these need to be taken with a pinch of salt, some as sycophantic in their praise for their subjects, others are the reverse written by those who disagree with them, occasionally you will find a balanced view but even that will have omissions. Then there are the firsthand documents, speeches, diaries etc. <br /><br />As someone who is still plodding through the unabridged diaries of Chips Cannon (I'm now on volume 3) I have read the pre-war entries. I can see why when the diaries were first to be printing that many leading lights in politics were nervous until they were told they would be heavily edited. You see the thing is in those diaries are recorded the language, thoughts and opinions of many of those in the Conservative party and British aristocracy that Cannon mingled with. The language used by Braverman is actually very similar to that of many in pre-war Britain who were sympathetic or enthusiastic for the National Socialist Party in Germany.<br /><br />Now I doubt that Gary has an extensive a political library that I have. There were of course members of the Conservative Party who were opposed to too close a link with Germany during that period. But as Churchill himself pointed out these were his wilderness years as he was away from the main thrust of his party. However, there were many to the right of the Conservative party at that time who either flirted with or espoused fascist ideology. That group is worrying, looking at them and the attack on asylum seekers from the current Conservative party they would seem to fit right in with the current party and policies, some of which are actually taken straight out of the National Front policy book from the 1970s.<br /><br />So here's the thing the actions from the Government calling out against the criticism of their policy, forcing what is meant to be an impartial public service braodcaster take a side is this debate, is exactly the opposite of impartiality. They never rile against opinion when it is strongly in their favour. They never stand up when the exclusion of pro-European voices such as the Liberal Democrats were missing from many of the political panel shows during the lead up to the referendum to leave the EU. No, the cries from Westmister, despite the wolf call from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport that "indivual cases are a matter for the BBC" are actually the signs of repression of freedom of speech. One side of a culture war is given carte blanche but dare to speak out on the other side and we will shut you down.<br /><br />Today there are no presenters, pundits or commentators, willing to bring football to the BBC. So no <i>Football Focus</i>, no <i>Final Score</i> no match commentary of Radio 5 Live, no <i>Fighting Talk </i>on the radio tomorrow either. <i>Match of the Day </i> itself will have no pundits, no commentary (from the usual freelancers) and maybe also not any interviews with players or managers. <br /><br />People are standing up and wanting to be counted. The mood may be that the language is divisive, the language is hedging towards that of Mosley's New Party in the early 30s here on British soil. The football community this weekend may be making a stand against that language in their own version of Cable Street. </p>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-86968191153090473832023-02-22T21:17:00.007+00:002023-02-22T21:17:48.799+00:00Kate Forbes misses out the liberalism of same-sex marriage legislation<p> So Kate Forbes, who at the time of writing this, is running in the leadership election of the Scottish National Party has said she would have voted against same-sex marriage legislation at the time, if she had been elected to Holyrood. She is also accusing others of being illiberal who speak out against her views.</p><p>The irony is that same-sex marriage was from the time was written as policy the whole way up to legislation shows how liberal you can be, while not excluding other. You see same-sex marriage legislation could have forced faith groups to carry out such marriages. However, nobody in a same sex relationship wants to celebrate or have that recognised in somewhere they don't feel welcome. That is why in my opinion one of the key phrases in same sex marriage legislation is "allow faith groups that wish to do so". <br /><br />You see prior to SSM legislation nobody could carry out a same sex marriage, not in civil law, in a faith setting or in Scotland by a humanist celebrate. At this point I'll ignore the fact that at Lib Dem Federal level the policy for Same Sex Marriage had to be amended to allow humanist celebrants to carry out mixed sex mrriages (which had only been possible in Scotland up until then). You see when drafting the policy in Scotland it was clear that nobody would be forced to carry out same-sex marriages. <br /><br />But I hear you say what about making registrars carry out same-sex marriages. Those who raise an argument about this based on their religious perspective seem to leave their religious views at the door when they marry divorced couples or even couples who Kate Forbes would say were wrong already had children.<br /><br />You see SSM is a legislation that enables faith groups to come to their own decisions. With the exception of the Church of England and Church in Wales that some people thought it would be better to legislation against those churches solely making a decision on their own, and thus amended to exclude them from the enabling to carry out such marriage if they wanted to.</p><p>But it is something I have faced through the 13 years that there has actually been a Lib Dem policy in place for SSM. Something that I am proud to have had a hand in When people in faith groups accuse it of impinging on them when n fact the only thing impinging on them is their own views. It is ironicly something that I still struggle with coming from my own church The Presbyterian Church in Ireland, although I do feel excuded from there because of the judgement those in high places put on people from the LGBT+ community. In a strange way Covid actually makes my church accessible to me once more even though I haven't set foot in it for years.<br /><br />The irony is that today a spokesperson for the Free Church of Scotland, of which Kate Forbes is a member said: <br /><br /></p><blockquote>"It is lamentable that Kate's honest adherence to simple traditional values would, for some, disqualify her from contributing to the public good of Scotland.
<br /><br />"Kate Forbes is standing on the basis of her policies - the fact that she is being criticised for her Christian convictions shows a level of bigotry that has no place in a pluralistic and diverse society." </blockquote><br /><br />As I have pointed out above the views themselves are actually protected in the legislation she is opposed to. But the Free Church like one or two others likes to play the victim in all this.<br /><br />It was faith that made homosexuality illegal in the first place and every step of the way LGBT+ people have had to slowly move towards equality, not getting there in one step like banning did, but incrementally. At every step we are told that people of faith don't agree with loosening the hod they have over our civil lives, while some of our are also in dialogue with them in relation to our faith lives. Kate Forbes has put this front and fore of her campaign during her launch, yet apparently we are not to take her stances as a step towards leading a Government as a possible move to restrict freedoms. If we speak up against it we are the illiberal ones, despite constantly bending over backwards to get small change after small change to not upset those with certain faith views to object to everything.<p></p>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-1183192513862181692023-01-16T19:56:00.001+00:002023-01-16T19:56:18.767+00:00Conservative and Unionist Party hoisting the union on a Trans Petard<p>The full name of the party that is in Government in Westminster is the Conservative and Unionist Party. However, today that took a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64288757" target="_blank">shocking step</a> that may well rock or even split up that union.</p><p>It is being announced that the Scottish Secretary will this evening inform the Scottish First Minister that tomorrow he will take the legal steps to invoke a Section 35 which allows Westminster to overturn a piece of legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament. This is something that has never been done in the 25 years of the Socttish Parliament. </p><p>The piece of legislation that it is seeking to overturn is the Gender Recognition Bill that was passed with an overwhelming vote of 67% of MSPs voting in favour. The breakdown by party was</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>All 4 Lib Dem MSPs in favour (100%)</li><li>All 7 Green MSPs in favour (100%)</li><li>21 out of 22 Labour MSPs in favour (95%)</li><li>54 out of 64 SNP MSPs in favour (84%)</li><li>2 out of 31 Conservative MSPs in favour (6%)</li></ul><div>So as you can see every party in Scotland bar one was overwhelmingly in favour. The fact that the Westminster Conservative Government is now going to block this going to Royal Assent is a political football being played in an increasingly right wing leaning Conservative party. The language that the party has been using on assylum seekers, Trans peoples, workers rights to strike and protest are all now looking more and more authoritarian. </div><div><br /></div><div>However, by invoking section 35 for the first time in history this is also piling up gunpowder under the very Union itself in a way which unlike Guy Fawkes may explode the union. It is such a minor piece of legislation in the grand scheme of things, but it opens a flood gate and leads to a slippery slope. At a time when those who want another independence referendum are already heated, the act of stopping a Scottish Act gaining Royal Assent just might push many who were agnostic to Scotland's independence into the independence camp.<br /><br />The worse thing is that the Scottish Government's Gender Recognition Bill has no actual impact on UK-wide equality legislation, this was pointed out in the wording of the Bill itself. It is only impacting the right to change your gender on your birth certificate and only impacts those who wish to do so not anyone else. We in the UK do not <i>currently*</i> need to carry our birth certificates around with us. <br /><br />The Secretary of State of Scotland also calls for there to be more consideration of this. However, there was already 6 years of public consultion into this bill it was not rushed, what is rushed in the UK Government's response.</div><div><br /></div><div>Yet this is the petard upon which the Westminster Government is prepared to hoist the Union.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is laughable that the West Lothian Question which caused Tam Dalyell great ethical quandry over Scottish devolution will pale into comparison to what today has become the Westminster Question. What is a Secretary of State for Scotland opposes the will of a supermajority of the devolved Scottish Parliament.<br /><br /><i>By saying currently the more right wing, authoritarian and dare I say facist the Conservative Party are becoming me may well start to single out individuals and groups of individuals may not be far off.</i><br /><br /></div><p></p><p><br /></p><p> </p>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-91021490098314569332023-01-04T23:30:00.007+00:002023-01-04T23:30:00.204+00:00Maths post 16 years old<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjONefI_A3_8kdvvEsNG6KsL_t_puVmPzHpPs2GH7aCsae0LKYUoBf1s3QqiRgUnKXmpGqNaGEVRD6b-Fjxkb3WfbCnm75qRNPiTaUK0Cw0LROlB5PTlXGrjiYYBh4rjxV9K_NUWnVpq2gTqhxijm4CTM2VoGruYurvE9UBWvV91Pfpa-gt6DTlwTudiA/s1059/Matrix%20Algebra.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="476" data-original-width="1059" height="144" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjONefI_A3_8kdvvEsNG6KsL_t_puVmPzHpPs2GH7aCsae0LKYUoBf1s3QqiRgUnKXmpGqNaGEVRD6b-Fjxkb3WfbCnm75qRNPiTaUK0Cw0LROlB5PTlXGrjiYYBh4rjxV9K_NUWnVpq2gTqhxijm4CTM2VoGruYurvE9UBWvV91Pfpa-gt6DTlwTudiA/s320/Matrix%20Algebra.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>So Rishi Sunak thinks that maths should be taught to all young people up to the age of 18. Now I do have an O'level in Maths, plus one in Additional Maths, an A'Level in Maths, plus as part of my Economics degree did guide a lot of maths/statistics. So I would say I know a fair amount about the type of maths that is taught after the age of 16 as in some form or other I was being taught maths up until the age of 22. My late father also had a degree in maths.<br /><br /><i>I have laid out my maths qualifications here to show the level of expertise I have on the issue of maths. I know that some out there in this post expertise required age will argue that I don't know what I'm talking about, but thats the nature of knowledge these days.</i><br /><br />On top of this I have 2 nephews both post 16 years old and a niece currently in secondary education. Each of them have different experience of maths through their schooling as well. So with all the agrued experience within our family is maths really something that needs to be taught to everyone after the age of 16.<br /><br />Most of the maths that most careers need for every day use is that which is taught up to the age of 16. Additional maths, A'level and anything you are taught at university are more specialised for the decipline you are studying or more complex maths. If you go into a career that works with numbers yes you will need to know the principles behind many of the more complex maths, especially when you have to set up a spreadsheet or a data base programme that needs to calculate something. Excel or other programmes may be good but the better the maths of the person working it the more complex the functionality can become. <i>For this I also worked as a global data analyst for a call centre with all sorts of contingency built in, some of our worksheets will still be funtional long after we are gone, for example, working out set public holidays (Easter is a little more awkward).</i><p></p><p>My nephew are a mixture one is science base the other more artistic. Both were good at maths, both got decent result in their GCSE but both knew the path they wanted to travel. For one maths fitted into the sciences for the other it didn't fit in. Does that decision make one of them less useful going into adulthood? No! As for my neice she struggles with maths, something that I know a lot of people do, these are probably the proportion of people that the Prime Minister wants to educate more in maths.<br /><br />So while I can do matrix algebra, complex statistical equaltions with <i>x </i>constants and other stuff that would blow your mind this isn't going to help your hairdresser, car mechanic, beautician or bricklayer. They all just want to do a BTEC after the age of 16. <br /><br />Post 16 education needs to remain a mix of academic split into sciences and humanities, and vocational. The vocataional courses will include what maths is required within those professions but that maths isn't what is stardardly taught at 16 year. No young person over the age of 16 should be enslved into the level of maths that someone Winchester educated, with an Oxford First in PPE and Fulbright Scholar who went on to become an investment banker before turning to politics thinks helped him. This is how out of touch with ordinary people, ordinary work and day to day life the richest Prime Minister in our nations history is.</p>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-34361916170014239702022-12-07T19:46:00.003+00:002022-12-07T19:50:41.026+00:00Tis the Season for Drag...Oh No it Isn't<p> Gender Critics are taking exception to Drag Queens interacting with children.<br /><br />While this may be a cultural issue that sparks fear in the USA when they try to import it to the UK they forget a number of issues.<br /></p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQhP_JvikRjcvjwZ7HRmudFihhqmTysp-mnwoa_-fOFfr1IiPua1xNfzrl8GG2gk0SjfSaApVeDIZZ_xGAMS4ABDB9ep3RSr1UGvZW5zyaxnIje9Zaf5C9LbI9Dl0WquT5TRHwdV7rPojXFCYcLKzRAZBlvJ7mvaLYqrLEkReHM6c1tj6J2uA5JtTlCA/s932/Panto%20Dame.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="525" data-original-width="932" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQhP_JvikRjcvjwZ7HRmudFihhqmTysp-mnwoa_-fOFfr1IiPua1xNfzrl8GG2gk0SjfSaApVeDIZZ_xGAMS4ABDB9ep3RSr1UGvZW5zyaxnIje9Zaf5C9LbI9Dl0WquT5TRHwdV7rPojXFCYcLKzRAZBlvJ7mvaLYqrLEkReHM6c1tj6J2uA5JtTlCA/w320-h180/Panto%20Dame.jpg" title="Hat tip https://www.kentonline.co.uk/" width="320" /></a></div><br /> Almost every adult in the UK's first introduction to the theatre was a cross dressing bonaza known as Pantomime. Not only was there always a motherly figure (two/three in the case of Cinderella's sisters/mother) who was clearly a man in a frock, or to be more precise a different frock every time they appeared on the stage. But also the leathere ding lady would invariably fall for a principle boy who was another women dressed a man. And despite all this cross dressing everyone lived happily ever after. But more importantly these Drag artists were often used as fillers while the set was being redressed, bringing children up unto stage for interaction with them, or going out in to the auditorium with the house lights up to do the same.</li><li>Moving on from Pantomime the Bard, ie William Shakespeare had a number of plays they involved cross dressing. This is especially incredible out of sync with gender critical objections when you consider at the time of Shakespeare only men would appear on stage even in the female roles. But to this day those plays that contain plots lines of cross dressing do not draw the ire of gender critical, TERFs, transphobes in the same way and story time with a drag queen.</li><li>Historically we have always had Drag appearances on our TV. There was of course Dame Edna Everage and Lily Savage but also there were many sketches by the Two Ronnies and Dick Emery in drag all were mainstays of Saturday night televion.</li></ol><div>You see drag and cross dressing is very much a part of British culture. Those who attack it are attacking UK culture from a narrow American world view. Indeed many male employees across the country and also dressed up in drag to raise money for Children in Need or Comic Relief down through the years. We in Britain do no inherantly have issues with men dressing as women per se.<br /><br />But the transphobic Gender Critical movement have taken it on. With the success of Ru Paul's Drag Race and its spin offs we are now seeing more Drag Queens who like Lily Savage started in gay venues coming to the fore. The attack on these drag performers is an attack on otherness. It is an attack on the entire LGBT+ community. You see they have objections to the T, they see drag a gateway to the T, which is not the case for a large majority of drag performers. It is an art form. The art from the makeup, dresses and performace all of this is art. But it is art that is comfortable in an LGBT+ space, but is starting to find its feet outside those once safe (or not so safe historical) spaces into the mainstream.<br /><br />The obection to drag queens. The mindless protests against drag story time up to the shooting of a gay venue hosting a drag night. All of this is an attack on LGBT+ people. It starts with the T but it spreads to include the LGB, another reason that the LGB Alliance does not represent LGB people. We see the harm that gender critical views are leading to. For them the T, the transphobia, is a starter to being H, homophobic. The LGB Alliance cannot see this and they do no represent us, there are a front for Transphobia painted up to appear LGB friendly. Somehow this organisation has charity status despite doing nothing to support LGB people, its sole purpose if to attack trans people, or more correctly only trans women.<br /><br />The history of drag in the UK is in front of the Gender Critics for all to see. Or more to the point in this season, it's behind you, and goes back an awfully long way.</div><p></p>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-10218567245593960102022-11-21T18:54:00.006+00:002022-11-21T19:04:03.720+00:00My Footballess World Cup<p> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ2aLEC4wf6z_6_-3Dc4HCIIzrYGXIkXwTt655RNYPfrHujMhjmjLfzp5AvBDG663HWDdYocVWpWX5Pzej6x5Q6JUfVlJ7Q425inqWVUuyVBariWd7dNM8r7-DZXibpfS0SuNfkDk9P6Miw9xNZ6REaloWL8D2wQ1sXaoQm-bXGowUkBG2z2y6s5Nnow/s823/One%20Love.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="547" data-original-width="823" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJ2aLEC4wf6z_6_-3Dc4HCIIzrYGXIkXwTt655RNYPfrHujMhjmjLfzp5AvBDG663HWDdYocVWpWX5Pzej6x5Q6JUfVlJ7Q425inqWVUuyVBariWd7dNM8r7-DZXibpfS0SuNfkDk9P6Miw9xNZ6REaloWL8D2wQ1sXaoQm-bXGowUkBG2z2y6s5Nnow/s320/One%20Love.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Support LGBT+ fans may not be seeing this World Cup</td></tr></tbody></table><br />My first memory of World Cup was Argentina 1978 as the UK was on the March with Allie's Army. There was the first wall chart in Glenn family history hung on the cork tiles in the kitchen and one of the first games I may have watched involved Iran who played Scotland in the second of their group games.</p><p>This year Iran are gain taking on some home nations today playing England and later will take on Wales. However, unlike 1978 and every World Cup since I don't care. You see almost 10 years ago when the venue of this World Cup was announced I <a href="https://stephensliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-thoughts-of-world-cup-location.html">blogged</a> with the concluding remarking saying:<br /><br /></p><blockquote>So I guess I'll not even be watching the 2022 World Cup, even on TV, thanks to decision of FIFA today. Wonder what I'll end up doing instead?</blockquote><p></p><p>Well true to my word I am not.</p><p>The announcement today that the 9 European nations who said they would wear the One Love armband all backed out of their commitment when it turned up that their captains would face a football sanction for doing so, makes that decision all the more real.<br /><br />Before the tournament started FIFA President trying to rally people around te football rather than the failures of Qatar said amongst other things "Today I am gay". Sadly the actions of him and FIFA show that he is not gay. </p><p>Also those who promised to be allies of LGBT+ fans have proven they are only allies in words alone, not when they might face consequences. They promised to wear an armband saying one love, in support of LGBT+ fans, but when FIFA said they would face football sanctions possibly a yellow card, those promises vanished. The LGBT+ fans were up in arms. You see gay people face consequences.<br /><br />At the weekend, there were five people at a nightclub in Colorado Springs who lose their lives when a shooter invaded a gay nightclub, in a reasonably liberal society. In Qatar LGBT+ people face prision time for being who they are, today even some fans have been told to take off shirts with the price colours on them.<br /><br />It reminds me of an anecdote of my time supporting Livingston. When you support a small team home and away the stalwarts all know you, there were three coaches of fans at away matches at the time, we were a large family. But occassionally we had more fans than normal travelling away. At one League Cup tie at Celtic Park we have a wedge in one corner of the stadium. So when a Celtic player stepped up to take a corner and as the players raised their hands calling for the ball, one of my teams fans started shouting "Put you hand up if your gay". So I did. He was only about 4 rows behind me, so I could hear some of the regulars telling him to stop, as they know I was was there and what me raising my had was all about. Survice to say he never tried that again suring that match.<br /><br />Gay fans have step by step taken fans to stand up. Face consequences. Become bolder. Follow our teams, our countries and not hide who we are. Sadly today FIFA, the FIFA President, certain Associations and players have all shown that unlike gay fans or gay players they are not prepared to face the consequneces when it actually matters. <br /><br />Their words are hollow. Their support fair weather.<br /><br />My World Cup for 2020 will remain footballless.</p>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-36030865172704246972022-11-17T00:14:00.002+00:002022-11-20T12:57:05.067+00:00The Fable of the Critical Control of Freedom of Thought<p> Once upon a time, not too long ago, a political party could think what it wanted, propose ideas it espoused and work to make the world a better place. But sadly those days are now the things of fairy tales.</p><p>Now you see it is not the right of polical movement to come up with <a href="https://www.libdems.org.uk/constitution">ideals</a>, hold them steadfast and work to making them take shape in society. No, now, even here in the UK, it is they who have the biggest crowdfunded legal fund who pull all the strings.</p><p>Yes sadly even if for years you thought your party's vision was that nobody should be enslaved by conformity, a small group of people, critical of changes in our society that are in the early days of being enshrined by law, will jump upon you at ever utterance of progress. <br /><br />They believe they they should have the freedom of speech to speak their minds, even if what is on their mind is to make everyone conform to their ideal. They will challenge you from entering their spaces even though this has been established in law. They want to call you by a name you no longer use, without ramifications. They want to label you by whatever term they want to use and not what you want others to use for you. Indeed they say that you asking to be called what you want, labelled as you want is an intrusion on their liberty up with which they will not put.<br /></p><p>Thus it have come to pass that through some legal challenges those critics of change have got their hate filled, harmful agenda recognised as a system of belief and those views are protected under law in certain circumstances. However, once judgement, while it does not give them carte blanche to express those views without restriction is actually not how they see it. They see the limited extent that one judgement has been made in their favour as validation that what they think is correct. It certainly isn't a pleasant way of thinking, it isn't kind, it isn't gentle. <br /><br />When any dare to challenge them they harrass and pile on. Allies of those impacted can be called all manner of slurs when they raise their heads above the parapet to defend those they attack and dismiss. Names like mysogynist, homophobe and when defending children who they attack paedophile is also thrown into the mix.<br /><br />Yes what I am talking about is those who self identify as gender critical. In reality I will call them what they are transphobes. They have an irrational fear of trans women it would seem trans men are not the subject so much of their vitriol. They want everyone to only use the public toilets, changing rooms of the sex they were assigned at birth. So they start to challenge women cis or trans who look a little masculine. Heaven helps them if they get their way and trans men actually start to enter women's facilities and they get challenged about being where those critics have been campaigning for them to be.<br /><br />But the sad thing is that apparently political thought is now dead. A political party that stands for liberal thought, that has long stood up for the underdog and the oppressed now must kowtow to those who express gender critical tought. This is the new watered down code of conduct on <a href="https://beta.libdems.org.uk/code-of-conduct/transphobia">transphobia</a> from the party I hold dear.<br /><br />Well when like me you are someone who responds to a large number of government consultations basing those responses very much on the thoughts laid out in the preamble to our constitution. When I also base my votes at oonference on those same ideals. When many of my speeches and answers to questions on doorsteps or in hustings also hark back to that document, I know where I stand. I know I shall not be moved. I too have a belief, a belief that the preamble to our constition sets out goals for a liberal future. <br /><br />Yes in a liberal society you can be critical of things, but when that criticism causes harm, maligns whole sections of society and is in fact intolerant rather that critical it does not have a place within liberalism. It is facism, it is thought control rather than freedom of speech of expression. When you cry defamation at anyone who questions you critically. When you slur and harrass anyone who questions someone on their motivation to the extent it takes hours to check on their notification. They you are in the business of subverting freedom and enslaving others to your conformity.<br /><br />And that destopia is something I do not want to see come to be.<br /><br />Other takes on this: <br /><br /><a href="https://miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org/2069352.html">miss_s_b</a><br /><br /><a href="https://lgbt.libdems.org.uk/en/article/2022/1437811/statement-on-revision-of-definition-of-transphobia">LGBT+ Liberal Democrats</a></p>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-41416230737159851892022-11-12T21:58:00.005+00:002022-11-12T22:18:16.600+00:00The Paradox of Tolerance<p> In a note on chapter 7 of his 1945 book <i>The Open Society and Its Enemies</i>, Karl Popper wrote the following.<br /><br /></p><blockquote>Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.</blockquote><br /><p></p><p>This is somthing I've been returning to in recent months, as was something from the study of philosopy as part of my Economics degree, it was a little aside I went down in he age before Wikipedia and the rest.<br /><br />But it is something that is becoming very real again to. Popper wrote this just as Facism was facing defeat. Now we have a new idealogy that seems to want to forbid their followers from listening to rational argument. Whether that in the form of the Brexiteers calling all arguments "Project Fear", Trump supporters denying the result of the 2020 election and the Gender Critical brigade who want everyone to conform to a binary definition of gender defined at birth.<br /><br />All three of the above movements show an intolerance to other views. There were times during the Brexit debate some people said I did not know what I was talking about, despite having an Economics degree and taking options in European Economics in both by second and third year. As well as writing my dissertaion on the effect on European Economics with the then possible expansion of the EU.<br /><br />The same applies now whenever I stand up for Trans rights I have people jump on who call me a mysogynist, homophobic and/or a paedophile. The latter is especially true when I say that people under the age of 18 can realise their sexual indentity and gender and need support in that. Apparently yet again lived experience that this is true is not enough for some, now is having studied medical sources. </p><p>So do we live is an age that is post rational argument?<br /><br />When I was studying economiccs at University one of my tutors told us read the news from three sources every day. One paper from the view you agree with, one from the opposite opinion and also if you can find it a neutral point of view. This daily exercise of going into the library to look at how other papers expressed the same news was eye opening. It also made me more aware to look to the source material where possible. Sadly today too many people only get their news, their opinions and their talking points from those who share their beliefs. It is too easy to only wallow in the views you have.<br /><br />However, if that leads to intolerance, don't argue that we must tolerate your intolerance. We will provide reasoned argument that you are wrong, but if you block us, say to your follows we are deceptive, use bullying tactics to try and silence us, we will stand up to your intolerance. We will call it out. We do not have to tolerate intolerance to be liberal and tolerant. </p>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-72674336424095215882022-08-27T14:23:00.004+01:002022-08-27T14:23:36.400+01:00Follow Up to My Resignation Letter from LDCF<p> As I did say at the end of my post of my <a href="https://stephensliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2022/08/my-resignation-letter-from-ldcf-liberal.html" target="_blank">resignation letter</a> from the LDCF (Liberal Democrat Christian Forum) I did say I would publish a follow up about some of the context before and to answer some the queries that have come up since.<br /><br />First of all the context.<br /><br />Last weekend I became aware that the Chair of LDCF has signed an open letter started by Liberal Voice for Women. He had signed it not in a personal capacity as all bar one of the other signaturies had done, but on behalf of the exec of LDCF. The other exception was the Chair of Liberal Voice for Women.<br /><br />Liberal Voice for Women is a group that is not affiliated to the Liberal Democrats in any way and have been asked to stop using the word Liberal in their title as it is misleading. This, however, does not stop them emailing members of the Liberal Democrats bringing Gender Critical concerns to the fore and sometime leading potentially naive members, councillors, peers and others to be swayed by their argument. Some of whom have later regretted decisions they made supporting the group and have apologised for their action, naivity on the subject and hurt they have caused long standing friends.<br /><br />The current letter was regarding freedom of speech for the groups LGB Alliance and FiLiA to have stalls at the upcoming Lib Dem Conference. The only people with a right to have stalls at Lib Dem Conference would be the Groups that are made up of Liberal Democrats the groups that represent subsets of our membership. Groups such as LDCF and LGBT+ Lib Dems for example. Other groups, organisations and charities with outside interests will be invited or accepted by the Conference Committee. Some of these are ungoing concerns that share the parties values, other are groups that are relevant to the debate or areas of policy we are focussing on at present. In any event there is finite space for stalls in the exhibition part of conference.<br /><br />The argument about freedom of speech is one that would sway Liberal Democrats, we love debate especially amongst ourselves. However, with relation to the two organisations in question how do they use the freedom of speech they already have?<br /><br />Those who support these two organisations use their freedom of speech to spread fear about trans women, never trans men it is interesting to note. They want trans people to use the bathroom of their assigned gender at birth, ie they don't want trans women in women's bathrooms, changing rooms or spaces, but seem to ignore the implication that trans men with their testosterone shots and growing their facial hair would be subject to the same rules and have to be in "women's" spaces. <br /><br />They also use their freedom of speech to lambast, copy post, abuse and torment not only trans people but any of us who show support for them. Everytime any of us of LGBT+ Lib Dems twitter account post in support of Trans people we are attacked virolantly.<br /><br />This letter is asking to allow members of this organisation to operate a stall, to share the same space as LGBT+ members who would have their own stall at Lib Dem Conference. The LGBT+ stall is more than just a stall to promote our organisation it is also a stall that has helped many LGBT+ members of the party feel safe, often for the first time, to talk about their sexuality or gender identity. This safe space would easily be affected by anti-trans groups, who also aren't too keen on trans supportive LGB people or trans inclusive feminists, being set up who knows how far away.<br /><br />Now when I saw that the Chair of LDCF had signed this letter on behalf of the LDCF Exec I did not accuse the entire Exec of making a misjudgement. I reached out to friends on the Exec of LDCF to get a better picture of what was happening. I was relieved to hear that concerns had been raised by some about taking action as a group to sign this letter. <br /><br />There was also an offer to speak to the chair relayed through one of these exec members. As I have a tiring work schedule and other commitments I asked to what end this phone call would have, but heard nothing back through that channel.<br /><br />Well this morning a <a href="https://www.ldcf.org/statement" target="_blank">statement</a> (since amended slightly) appeared on the LDCF website. The initial wording started with "LDCF unanimously co-signed a letter". I took obvious objection to such wording as I was a member of LDCF and had not given permission for anyone to sign that letter on my behalf as part of LDCF, nor was there any communication with the membership of the whole about such a letter. How this could be unanimous is a party of voting geekery is beyond me.<br /><br />Clearly as a past member of the LGBT+ Exec, an openly gay three time Westminster Candidate I could not stand by and have myself associated with such a poorly worded statement that seemed to suggest I agreed to such a stance. I announced I would be tendering my resignation forthwith in response to the Twitter post with the statement and drafted <a href="https://stephensliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2022/08/my-resignation-letter-from-ldcf-liberal.html" target="_blank">the letter</a>. <br /><br />I said I would publish the letter just over an hour after I submitted the resignation letter. This was to allow peope time to maybe persuade others that the statement should to be taken down from the website before further consideration was given to this matter. When it was still there at 10:30 I hit publish on my accounts.<br /><br />In the interim I did get question from the LDCF Twitter account, at first anonymously but in a personal capacity. When I enquired who was asking, it was from the Chair. However, when I asked publically if he had reached out the LGBT+ Lib Dems I got the response.<br /><br /></p><blockquote>We did reach out to various people including LGBTQ+ in the Party and received no response other than the same ‘they are transphobic’. We have asked very senior people in the Party for their evidence and experience also. Let’s all push now for some clear statements.</blockquote><p></p><p>So yeah going to the authority on trans issues, being told the organisations in question are transphobic apparently isn't enough clarity. <br /><br />I was also asked to share proof that the organisations were transphobic. I face enough of this whenever I do stand up for trans rights, it is an ongoing struggle for many of us on social media. But our party is clear on what constitutes <a href="https://www.libdemvoice.org/liberal-democrats-adopt-definition-of-transphobia-65868.html" target="_blank">transphobia</a>. But if the chair of any part of our party (and I say this having chaired parts of it myself) can't do some basic research, ask some relevant people and then listen to their answers. Before going ahead and doing something anyway on behalf of that organisation or just exec (not quite clear which, if either), what hope is there?<br /><br />This is a Saturday I have a two day weekend this week (which only happens 50% of the time). I was hoping for some self care this morning. Thanks to those who have helped provide care to me as I went through this tough time. I may write more on this latter but for now I am taking some time for myself.</p><p><br /><br /><br /><br /></p>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-69147067052141086582022-08-27T10:30:00.013+01:002022-08-28T12:28:45.423+01:00My Resignation Letter from LDCF (Liberal Democrat Christian Forum)<p> Dear [Secretary],</p><br />In light of the recent <a href="https://www.ldcf.org/statement" target="_blank">statement</a> that you have posted in the LDCF website and on twitter I cannot in good conscience as a gay, liberal, Christian remain a member of Lib Dem Christian Forum. <br /><br />The statement starts by saying the the LDCF has unanimously decided to sign the letter in support of LGB Alliance and FiLiA attending our conference. As a member of LDCF I was not consulted nor did I give authority for you or any member of the Executive to speak on my behalf to make this decision unanimous of the Forum, which I believe as a member includes me.<br /><br />You talk about holding the right to debate in good tension. I am aware that I and other LGBT+ members of the LDCF have reached out to members of the LDCF exec in recent days about this matter. We have pointed out that the debate we have had with this associated with the LGB Alliance have been far from a good tension. I personally have been called homophobic, mysogynistic, a groomer, a pervert and other things during such "debate" with this group. <br /><br />There is no good tension between LGB Alliance and the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats that attack and bombard our twitter and our members and supporters at every chance.Sadly allowing them into our conference exhibition space where our LGBT+ Lib Dem stall is seen as a safe space is not acceptable. As a past member of the LGBT+ Exec who has seen people taking their first steps to "coming out" at our stall this is seriously put at risk by having such a group, which only last week was classed a hate group in Ireland, in close proximity.<br /><br />It is with regret that after many years of LGBT+ members being welcomed and accepted as members of LDCF. Many years of me personally speaking to many LDCF exec members either at the LDCF or LGBT+ Lib Dem stalls at conference exhibition. I was under the impression that being LGBT+ was not contrary to membership of LDCF. The events of recent weeks make me now think differently. I no longer feel I can hold membership of the LDCF.<br /><br />Please accept this letter as my immediate resignation from LDCF with immediate effect.<br /><br />I shall be publishing this letter on my blog in at 10:30 this morning.<br /><br /><b>Update 28 Aug 12:22 </b>The following was just posted on the LDCF Website<div><br /><blockquote>The LDCF statement about the 2022 Liberal Democrats Conference arrangements, which was first issued on Friday (26/8), has been taken down to allow the Forum time to consider further these issues and the responses to it. We recognise that some people have been upset and hurt by our statement. That was never our intention, and we are sorry.</blockquote>I obviously will wait to hear of the outcome of the consideration that the LDCF Exec take on these issues.<br /><br /><div><br /></div><div><b><i>Since I announced my resignation the wording of the statement on the DCF website has altered slightly but the essence is still the same.</i></b><br /><br /><b><i>I will be writing a follow up post later with more details and answering some of the questions that have arisen since I announced I would be pubishing this letter.</i></b></div></div>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-55142672063441977612022-08-21T11:32:00.001+01:002022-08-21T11:32:21.222+01:00Is Giving Transphobes Access a Freedom of Speech Issue?<p> So let's say that someone uses the argument that they want to give a transphobic organisation access to a space where are large number of LGBT+ members assembly biannually. Let us also assume that they believe this is a Freedom of Speech issue.<br /><br />Firstly I would ask them to look at the organisation they are seeking to give that freedom of speech to, especially in relation to trans people. Do they use their freedom of speech to dead name trans people? Do they use their freedom of speech to insult, insinuate, libel and slander anybody who defend trans rights? Do they use their freedom of speech with responsibilty or do they echo the tropes that were used against LGB people in the 80s and 90s? <br /><br />If they do not use the freedom of speech they already have responsibly. If the LGBT+ members of a group are fearful of the repercussions of allowing such a group access to a space that they consider safe, for some the first space they feel safe to be genuinely themselves. <br /><br />Then you have to question why you want to allow them freedom of speech amongst a group who believe that nobody shall be enslaved by conformity, where we champion the freedom, dignity and well being of individuals. Where we reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon race, ethnicity, caste, heritage, class, religion or belief, age, disability, sex, gender identity or sexual orientation and oppose all forms of entrenched privilege and inequality.<br /><br />If you want to sign a letter demanding that such a group is given access then ask yourself why are you a Liberal Democrat in light of what the preamble to our constitution states.</p>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-4187435152933341012022-07-25T21:37:00.002+01:002022-07-25T21:37:18.584+01:00Lord Trimble 1944-2022<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3yWHlJWHk0GiaEVOvSSyY5T2uCgqmh-FdITlXVN-m27IXFsszeC2IZlqH7abrGZXLfFLyTvSSnY7KaPiGPs0wID6WPTcz0te5rShCJyDCpPk4wU0bST7nTquNXNMsRh2qwGEkoVZQpyW5cQGEAcCOheGfC4-w6KEtBVfMadyMJcUAiMgwaOlsDniuEQ/s794/Hands%20Across%20the%20Divide.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="594" data-original-width="794" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3yWHlJWHk0GiaEVOvSSyY5T2uCgqmh-FdITlXVN-m27IXFsszeC2IZlqH7abrGZXLfFLyTvSSnY7KaPiGPs0wID6WPTcz0te5rShCJyDCpPk4wU0bST7nTquNXNMsRh2qwGEkoVZQpyW5cQGEAcCOheGfC4-w6KEtBVfMadyMJcUAiMgwaOlsDniuEQ/w320-h239/Hands%20Across%20the%20Divide.jpg" title="Hands Across the Divide Statue" width="320" /></a></div>Not from from the little terraced house that my father grew up you will see <i>Hands Across the Divide</i> (pictured right). It is a statue that somes up the hope of peace not just in Londonderry/Derry but across the whole of Northern Ireland.<br /><br />The two men who best summed up that reaching across the divide are probably John Hume from the city of Derry and David Trimble, who coincidently like me also comes from Bangor, indeed his family went to same church as my mother's family and he went to Sunday School along with her. A young David Trimble is actually pictured in the book about the centenary of the current building of Trinity Presbyterian Church as part of the team working to build the church halls.<br /><br />However, it was building of something more amorphus than a structure that is still standing that will be Trimble's lasting legacy. It was through that reaching out that he formed a sense of purpose, an image of a peaceful future, a vision of a shared future and a pathway to acheiving that. The people had their say and overwhelmingly supported the agreement that the various parties agreed to. That is truly reaching across the divide, that is what a leader should aim for.<br /><p></p><p>It is with sadness that following on from John Hume's death in 2020, David, Baron Trimble of Lisnagarvey has passed away today. In 1998 the two men shared the Nobel Peace Prize and in his Nobel Speach David summed up the state of Northern Ireland poignantly when he said.</p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>There are two traditions in Northern Ireland. There are two main religious denominations. But there is only one true moral denomination. And it wants peace.</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>Those words are as relevant today as they were back in 1998, more so, as once once again our Assembly is struggling to get up an running. Our politicians need to look as Trimble and Hume and Seamus Mallon who served as Deputy First Minister and the example they gave of working for everyone. Trimble took a lot of abuse from some within Unionism for reaching out to the Nationalist traditions, but the peace has held largely, the devolved Assembly and continued on with several periods of strife, but carries on mostly and the people want it to work.<br /><br />He was one of the architects of something that many of us thought would never come to be. Even when his party and Hume's lost their prominence in their two communities, the two traditions continued to work together towards that peace.<br /><br />Tonight the thoughts and prayers are many are rightfully with Lady Trimble and his family. In our tomorrows people in Northern Ireland need to reflect upon what Trimble and Hume helped to bring about and work towards enhancing that legacy to make it truly one moral denomication of working together for all.<br /><br /></p><p>David, Baron Trimble of Lisnagarvey 15 Oct 1944 - 25 Jul 2022</p>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-75610228480827840952022-05-12T10:46:00.006+01:002022-05-12T23:21:59.386+01:00Northern Ireland Protocol 101: From a Northern Irish Perspective<p> I see that this morning John Redwood has tweeted:<br /><br /><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhayC5vEbYs_heDxJQflunyQ3ouPHsJz9168z2RaNdPlOCrclwICnDwmHVg3fmllzi6VpWcN5U4kUQHwzzaQZjcqb_dNVL5NsXde-8rav8FaIpAAt4rcOH-BbSDYSDZl6TspbGAVPtJT2wNiLjDisktiMlEAEsOXq7fF0T6xevTD0DZLgrlg-rUuUH37Q/s745/redwood%20protocol.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="363" data-original-width="745" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhayC5vEbYs_heDxJQflunyQ3ouPHsJz9168z2RaNdPlOCrclwICnDwmHVg3fmllzi6VpWcN5U4kUQHwzzaQZjcqb_dNVL5NsXde-8rav8FaIpAAt4rcOH-BbSDYSDZl6TspbGAVPtJT2wNiLjDisktiMlEAEsOXq7fF0T6xevTD0DZLgrlg-rUuUH37Q/w533-h260/redwood%20protocol.jpg" width="533" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">There are a number of issue with this that many of us here in Northern Ireland take umbridge with. Firstly John is assuming that those conducting the interviews also understand the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) and the various subsequent agreements added to the original. You see this whole thing is complex and when in 1998 the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland voted to approve the Good Friday agreement they actually knew what they were voting for. It was written out in full and sent to every home. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This of course contrasts to Brexit which there was never any clear plan of what it meant and the Conservative Government subsequently has been making up as it goes along. If John Redwood has read the GFA he would know how intertwined Northern Ireland, Ireland and indeed the EU institutions are within the agreement for a peaceful future for the island of Ireland. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">There were only 18 years from the GFA until the vote on Brexit but in that time things in Northern Ireland changed, for the better. Subsequently the people of Northern Ireland, who did know what was involved in the GFA actually voted against leaving the EU. There are number of reasons for that security, ease of access across the border, also realising how much interlinkage there is and that this would be threatened by an EU border stretching over 300 miles around Northern Ireland.<br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In these days of talk about energy security the fact that most of NI's gas and electricity is actually supplied from Ireland Her Majesty's Government threatening to get involved in some any sort of argument with the EU, by acting unilaterally is worrying.<br /><br />The other issue that many of us have is that Redwood is saying what the Unionist community think of the protocol in relation to the GFA. By this he means the DUP and TUV rather that the Unionist community but why let convenient shorthand get in the way when making a point about having the facts. The fact that the DUP and TUV were opposed to much of the GFA and are using it to acheive their own ends and on this they seem to be pushing the button of consent. Consent of course that wasn't settled with the withdrawal from the EU in the first place. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />This wee pocket of the UK along with several others didn't consent to our exit from the EU and then the European Economic Area, for many of the reasons about supply of food, services energy etc. In fact since Brexit our supermarkets have had to replace some of their foodstuffs, which have been in short supply in Great Britain also, with some supplied from Ireland, thank you protocol. So the DUP playing the consent card and with holding their consent for the Assembly to form over an issue over which their monirity view was fed into the Tory Government's negotiating position ignores the greater issues and more largely held opinion.<br /><br />The DUP stood in the recent election on their stance of the protocol as part of a five point plan. Since the election is appears that four of those points education, housing, health service and cost of living are not really important enough right now for them to work on. However, that didn't go down too well with the electorate they lost 6.7%* of their vote and 3 MLAs. Hardly a ringing endorsement for what they were pushing. Yet somehow their performance at this election is now not just enough to hold the majority of NI voters hostage but the entirity of the UK.<br /><br />Does anyone else remember the Prime Minister saying his deal was oven ready? Incuding the Protocol which Johnson and the DUP said was better than Theresa May's deal.<br /><br />Does anyone else remember their 2019 election pledge that there would be no more negotiation over Brexit?<br /><br />Well here we are we have a Government arguing that the Protocol that they agreed to as part of the process is not fit for purpose and that if the EU will not renegotiate it they will unilaterally chnge or scrap it.<br /><br />We live in strange and worrying times. Can someone in the Coservative Party please listen to the people of Northern Ireland who are not linked the DUP, TUV or Jamie Bryson (now that is a story for another time).</div><br /><p><span style="font-size: x-small;">* I will note here that the TUV gained 5.1% but if you also add in the 1.7% that the net loss for the unionist parties is still 3.3%</span></p>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-9095058203249703582022-05-11T18:54:00.000+01:002022-05-11T18:54:07.881+01:00Cooking with Tories<p> The latest trend I'm seeing from Conservative representatives is that if poor people knew how to cook properly they wouldn't be facing the cost of living crisis. The Tories that are saying this are clearly living in a High Looking down on the plebs with displeasure.<br /><br />They have clearly never been in a situation where when you are paid the bare minimum you can get towards the end of a month and face a regular panic. You scrape together all the change you can find to maybe buy enough food, and basic provisions at that, to last until pay day. Or maybe it is to go unto your electric key or gas card for you prepayment meters, or maybe to see if you can afford to get to work. This is not a new occurance it is something I faced at times around 2008. <br /><br />It was not caused my me not being able to cook. In fact I was not purchasing pre-cooked meals as it was cheaper to buy ingredients to cook. I had a selection of all the dried pulses you could imagine and ate a largely vegetarian diet as meat was so costly. In fact when I was forced to live like this I did spend longer before going to the shops working out how to balance my diet, and within my budget, that at times when I had more disposible income on which to life.<br /><br />Currently the sitution is dire. There are people whose fuel bills have gone up so much that they are having to ask their energy companies for credit, which is actually debt, to tide them over. This they will have to repay and therefore there is a further hole in their weekly budgets.<br /><br />There food shop is already going up and the fact that there are now more food banks across the UK than McDonalds restaurants should tell anyone looking at those figures that we are heading towards Dickensian disparities between the rich and the poor.<br /><br />So Tory MPs telling people how to economise or that they don't know how to cook are not aware of how much scraping around people do when they live on the edge. Food does not get thrown out it is used up, somehow. Basics are there and yes sometimes there is survival with basic bread and basic baked beans. However, when even the prices of the stables, bread, pasta, cooking oil are all subject to price rises due to the war in Ukraine affecting supply, along with a removal of the cap on energy price rises, pay is not keeping up to costs.<br /><br />Yet in the Queen's Speech provided yesterday there was no major statement about how to help those in need now, nor how to prevent more slipping into a poverty trap.</p>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-72811594183007617962022-01-26T08:54:00.001+00:002022-01-26T08:54:27.094+00:00Empty Chair at Empty Risos - Trubute to Erlend Watson<p> (with apologies to Claude-Michel Schönberg, Alain Boublil and Jean-Marc Natel) </p><p><span style="background-color: white;"><br /><span style="color: #202124; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px;">There's a grief that can't be spoken</span></span></span></p><div class="ujudUb u7wWjf" data-mh="-1" jsname="U8S5sf" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.58; margin-bottom: 12px;"><span jsname="YS01Ge">There's a pain goes on and on</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">Empty chair at empty RIsos</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">Now our friend Erlend has gone</span></div><div class="ujudUb xpdxpnd" data-mh="-1" jsname="U8S5sf" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.58; margin-bottom: 12px; max-height: none; overflow: hidden; transition: max-height 0.3s ease 0s;"><span jsname="YS01Ge">Here he talked of social justice</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">Here it was he helped campaigns</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">Here he sang at Glee with gusto</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">And regaled us all with tales</span></div><div class="ujudUb xpdxpnd" data-mh="-1" jsname="U8S5sf" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.58; margin-bottom: 12px; max-height: none; overflow: hidden; transition: max-height 0.3s ease 0s;"><span jsname="YS01Ge">From the Riso in the corner</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">He could see a world reborn</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">And he rose Riso restarting</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">And I can hear it now!</span></div><div class="ujudUb xpdxpnd" data-mh="-1" jsname="U8S5sf" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.58; margin-bottom: 12px; max-height: none; overflow: hidden; transition: max-height 0.3s ease 0s;"><span jsname="YS01Ge">The very words he had sung</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">Became our walking campaign song</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">On this lonely Good Morning</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">At dawn</span></div><div class="ujudUb xpdxpnd" data-mh="-1" jsname="U8S5sf" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.58; margin-bottom: 12px; max-height: none; overflow: hidden; transition: max-height 0.3s ease 0s;"><span jsname="YS01Ge">Oh my friend, my friend forgive me</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">That I live and you are gone</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">There's a grief that can't be spoken</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">There's a pain goes on and on</span></div><div class="ujudUb xpdxpnd" data-mh="-1" jsname="U8S5sf" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.58; margin-bottom: 12px; max-height: none; overflow: hidden; transition: max-height 0.3s ease 0s;"><span jsname="YS01Ge">Your smiling face all over Conference</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">Whispering to Risos from the floor</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">Empty chair at empty Risos</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">Which my friend will fix no more</span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc xpdxpnd" data-mh="-1" jsname="U8S5sf" style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.58; margin-bottom: 0px; max-height: none; overflow: hidden; transition: max-height 0.3s ease 0s;"><span jsname="YS01Ge">Oh my friend, my friend</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">We all know what your sacrifice was for</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">Empty chair at empty Riso</span><br /><span jsname="YS01Ge">Where Erlend campaigns no more</span></div>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-10933088212884368102021-06-01T19:54:00.002+01:002021-06-01T19:54:38.999+01:00Whitehead Minister to step down over Presbyterian's stance on LGBT members<p><i> As I start to write this I realise it has been an age since I posted anything here. I apologise, but even me before last year happened I lost a bit of my blogging mojo. Since I last posted there are 6 drafts that never saw the light of day.</i></p><p>In 1904 two of my Great Grandparents were married in the Presbyterian Church in Whitehead. Why is this significant?</p><p>Today the news is out that the current Minister of Whitehead, Rev Ian Carton is to step away from the ministry later this year because he cannot abide the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-57311211" target="_blank">church's stance on certain issues</a>. He said in a message to his congregation on Sunday "To our (his and his wife's) mind, it seems to be excluding people we'd like to welcome."</p><p>Regular readers, back in the day will know my struggles as a gay man appeasing my faith especially within the Presbyterian Church that has largely been the church of forefathers for generations, with many elders, minsters and other leaders within the family. Over lockdown I have "been" to more services than I have been at my home congregation in recent years. However, with churches reopening I will not be going back to attending in person as I am one of those that Rev Carton says he liked to welcome into a Presbyterian Church but feels unable to.</p><p>In this year's census when it asked for religion I used the accurate description of how I feel <b>excluded Presbyterian</b>. It is with sadness that any are forced away from the church they call home because of the stance that church has taken. I am not alone in the number of LGBT+ people who have felt that way and walked away from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. <br /><br />Now Rev Carton is taking the same journey that many of us have taken. He like us has studied the bible to come to terms with what would God want, what is right and where is his place within faith.</p><p>I am therefore glad that after he has gone about his studies he has come to the conclusion that this decision to step away from PCI ministry is a call.</p><blockquote>
"It's a call to leave the church of my birth, the church that I've grown up in," he said. <div><br /></div><div>"What I hear is God calling me, calling me to those who certainly feel cast out, who feel rejected, who feel unloved. </div><div><br /></div><div> "The decisions taken by our denomination mean that they can never belong."</div></blockquote><div><br /><br />It takes people of courage to stand up for what is right. It has always taken allies to help advance the cause of LGBT+ people in whatever environment. Rev Carton has shown courage, compassion and Christlike love in coming to his decision. </div>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-26214008188489518842019-09-17T15:50:00.000+01:002019-09-17T15:50:29.829+01:00Well Being Economics: First Reflections on Jo's FIrst Leader's Speech #JoSwinson #LDConf<div>
The key thing that made me jump out of my seat during Jo Swinson's leader's speech was when she questioned why we measure the state of our country by GDP (Gross Domestic Product). It took me back to one of my first Economics tutorials a little over 30 years ago.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In that tutorial the tutor said that economics was basically powered by everyone getting out of it what is best for themselves. I questioned that said what about those who were concerned about giving others a fair chance, cared about the environment etc. It will probably not therefore surprise you to know that in my elective courses in my second and third year I focused on Environmental and Developmental Economics along with my third choice European. The fact that after the second year and carried all three on deeper shows you that I have been tuned into this for over 30 years.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As Jo said with the level of well being for our planet and indeed everyone in our society we need to act now. We are in a climate emergency, we need urgent action. We have a President in the White House and another in Brazil who seem to not see the importance and actually don't want others to see this either. But the facts have been there for years and looking at some of my Environmental Economics books from 30 years ago even the predictions then are way sort of the disaster we are in now. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However, as Jo points out if we have any Brexit, especially if we have a no deal Brexit we will be furiously kicking under the flood waters to keep ourselves afloat without the time, energy or resources to be able to deal with such big issues. We'll be in survival mode, like those developing countries I learnt about 30 years ago, who said they had to follow our path to development burning fossil fuels, massive factories, chopping down their forests. This was because we refused to share with them the benefits their resources had given us in colonial times and they now felt left behind. But that will be the Britain post-Brexit. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We need to deal with things in the round, in conversation and coalition with other nations to deal with these issues, not heading to isolation behind the hulking, shulking Boris running from people who think differently from him.<br /><br />We need to act. We need to demand better. We need to do it now.</div>
Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-60095549997800613862019-09-05T19:25:00.000+01:002019-09-05T19:25:00.619+01:00Stigmatising HIV and Hepatitis isn't an Ecumenical Issue...or even a Health IssueThe resignations of my friends <a href="https://miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org/2048873.html">Jennie Rigg</a> and Sarah Brown resigned from the Liberal Democrats over the joyful acceptance of Philip Lee into the party it gave me pause for reflection.<br />
<br />
It wasn't that long ago that another "health issue" caused a lot of hurt here in Northern Ireland when Iris Robinson mentioned that her friendly psychiatrist could cure Northern Ireland of Sodomy it seemed. Quite rightly the Liberal Democrats were up in arms about those comments.<br /><br />However, when someone's views in the past that we should stop people coming to this country who have HIV or Hepatitis, some of those same people brush it under the carpet as a health issue. Then reject the anger and hurt that is felt by LGBT+ activists and campaigners. You see many of us who are LGBT+ have been told to our faces that we have a health issue. Usually as with Iris Robinson this is referring to our mental health. People have told us there is a cure, some of us even have tried the so called "cure" so know even more how much this hurts.<br /><br />Refusing people entry to this country because they have HIV or Hepatitis is a mixture of Homophobia and Xenophobia. It is based on ignorance like in the 1980s that these are just gay diseases. It ignores the many millions from Sub Sahara Africa who have been infected by their partners or parents. It legitimises a certain amount of asylum refusal, in much the same way that many LBGT+ asylum seekers have been turned away by the Border Force for not being stereotypically "gay" enough to warrant asylum.<br /><br />CIS, straight people telling LGBT+ people that they shouldn't be offended. That our lose would be unfortunate is stirring a pot that should not be stirred. We can feel this oppression because we still face it ourselves. We are still anxious about public signs of affection in areas we don't know well. We have faced the name calling, we have faced the accusing looks, the ignorance, the hatred.<br /><br /><br />Unlike from Father Ted this isn't so much an Ecumenical Issue. We are a party that believes nobody should be enslaved by conformity.<br /><br />When you base you standards of conformity of misguided health guidelines; without realising the fact about undetectable viral loads or the health nightmare that some of the poorest in this world face, you are not allowing everyone to achieve the best that they can be. If you do are you truly Liberal.Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-85059980879372431162019-04-20T14:19:00.000+01:002019-04-20T14:19:21.611+01:00The Good Friday Generation #LyraMcKee LegacyYesterday one of the quotes from Lyra McKee that really struck home was this:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“We were the Good Friday Agreement generation, destined to never witness the horrors of war but to reap the spoils of peace. The spoils just never seemed to reach us.”</blockquote>
<br />
Today on the day after she died of the gun shot wound she received on the streets of Derry we learn that two others of that Good Friday Agreement generation have been arrested for her murder. These are three young people who should have been able to reap the spoils of peace.<br /><br />Twenty one years ago after that other Good Friday they was a feeling of hope about the future for Northern Ireland. Our politicians were talking about talking responsibility for our health service, our economy, our education and all the other departments. Trust me as someone who was in the civil service either side of devolution I know the enthusiasm that local politicians had (yes even those who were opposed to the Good Friday Agreement).<br />
<br />
But this weekend after hearing about the ages of those arrested I got thinking. Is it really because the Good Friday Agreement generation didn't really reap the spoils of peace that we know have these young people taking to arms.<br />
<br />
We have to acknowledge that there has been some unrest in certain areas for a while. We have to look at why this has allowed to escalate.<br /><br />Our politicians have to take some responsibility, only last week Arlene Foster again used the scare story that unionists have to vote DUP to prevent Sinn Féin being the largest party. When our politicians still talk about us and them there is still division and not a shared future. Yesterday she was united with all the other parties standing in the Creggan at a vigil for a victim of violence in Northern Ireland.<br />
<br />
The issues that impact the poorest in Northern Ireland whether in the Creggan or East Belfast, whether Protestant or Catholic, gay or straight have been put on hold for over 2 years now. Decisions that cannot be made without a Minister are not being made. The spoils of peace are at a standstill. Partially this is down to the two largest parties still posturing with us and them redlines.<br /><br />Twenty one years on from the people of Northern Ireland voting to allow their politicians to take back control of our future. Twenty one years on from us trusting them to be able to share that power they are failing to act in our interests. At the moment there is too much playing at party politics rather that dealing with the real politics and sadly here in Northern Ireland too often that means making everything into a green or orange issue. If you are into consensus politics and agree with something that one side suggests you are even accused of the worst excesses of them uns.<br /><br />This is not healthy, we need to step away from all of this name calling and work on making things better for the generation that didn't experience the horrors of war, we need to be able to provide with the opportunity to enjoy the spoils of peace.<br />
Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-65419282355188061712018-11-26T16:44:00.000+00:002018-11-26T16:44:09.993+00:0060 Years ago a Unionist spoke out for homosexuality in WestminsterAt 4:44pm on this day 60 years ago the Unionist MP for North Belfast H. Montgomery Hyde rose to speak in the debate on the<i> Homosexual Offences and Prostitution Report</i> (aka the Wolfenden report). Unlike most NI Unionist contributions in the House of Commons since he was in favour of reform in this case the decriminalisation of homosexuality.<br />
<br />
Here in full in what he said taken from the archives of Hansard HC Deb 26 November 1958 Cols 390-399.<br /><br />I am very glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because when I tried to raise this question last Session, by way of a private Member's
<a class="permalink column-permalink" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/nov/26/homosexual-offences-and-prostitution#column_391" id="column_391" name="column_391" rel="bookmark" style="clear: both; float: right; font-style: normal; padding-left: 16px; text-decoration: none;" title="Col. 391 — HC Deb 26 November 1958 vol 596 c391"><br /></a>Motion, I succeeded in speaking for only the last minute of the day. I am glad that I have a little longer this afternoon.<br />
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
At the outset, I would like to join my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) in paying a warm tribute to Sir John Wolfenden and the other members of his Committee—including two Members of this House—for the frank, outspoken, carefully considered and humanitarian document which they have produced. It is a courageous document, which would have been impossible to write not so long ago. We should also remember that this document was motivated by the action of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), who originally raised the question of homosexuality in an Adjournment debate in April, 1954, and was supported by the then hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East, the present Lord Boothby.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
The Report is concerned with possible changes in the criminal law. It is not concerned with causes, biological or otherwise, of manifestations of sexual behaviour; it is concerned merely with the criminal law as it affects them today. It is worth while remembering that the Report took three years to produce and, incidentally, cost over £8,000. Nearly 200 witnesses gave evidence, either orally or in writing, including such members of the community as the police, schoolmasters, social workers, magistrates, doctors, psychiatrists, lawyers and others, including homosexuals, but—and this is an interesting point—not one prostitute. The Report was signed in August of last year and was published in the following month, so that the public have had over a year to think about it before it has come here for discussion.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
The most controversial proposal in the Report, and the one which has understandably provoked the most discussion, is that embodied in paragraph 62, which recommends that homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in private should no longer be a criminal offence. To some extent this proposal has tended to obscure the other proposals, set out on pages 115 to 117. I would mention particularly the proposal that, except for indecent assaults, all prosecutions for any homosexual offence more than twelve months old should be barred by Statute. In the field of prostitution, too, I see that
<a class="permalink column-permalink" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/nov/26/homosexual-offences-and-prostitution#column_392" id="column_392" name="column_392" rel="bookmark" style="clear: both; float: right; font-style: normal; padding-left: 16px; text-decoration: none;" title="Col. 392 — HC Deb 26 November 1958 vol 596 c392"><br /></a>
there is the proposal, about which we have heard something this afternoon, that it should no longer be necessary to establish annoyance in prosecutions for solicitation.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
Whether or not one agrees with these proposals it will be generally conceded by everyone who has read the Report that it is a social document of the highest importance. There are 30 main recommendations in the Report. I do not propose to go through them, but I want to draw attention to the basic philosophy which underlies the Report and which has clearly influenced all these recommendations. It is expressed in paragraphs 13 and 14, where the function of the criminal law is indicated to the extent that it concerns the Committee's inquiry. It is one of the few quotations that I should like to make this afternoon.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
Towards the end of paragraph 13 the Committee says, with regard to the function of the criminal law:
<q style="font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 22.66px;">In this field, its function, as we see it is to preserve public order and decency, to protect the citizen from what is offensive or injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others, particularly those who are specially vulnerable because they are young, weak in body or mind, inexperienced, or in a state of special physical, official or economic dependence.</q>
</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<q style="font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 22.66px;">14. It is not, in our view, the function of the law to intervene in the private lives of citizens, or to seek to enforce any particular pattern or behaviour, further than is necessary to carry out the purposes we have outlined. It follows that we do not believe it to be a function of the law to attempt to cover all the fields of sexual behaviour. Certain forms of sexual behaviour are regarded by many as sinful, morally wrong, or objectionable for reasons of conscience, or of religious or cultural tradition; and such actions may be reprobated on these grounds. But the criminal law does not cover all such actions at the present time; for instance, adultery and fornication are not offences for which a person can be punished by the criminal law. Nor indeed is prostitution as such.</q>
Nor, I may add, is lesbianism or homosexual conduct between females, and here, indeed, is an anomaly. If homosexual conduct between consenting adults in private is to continue to be an offence, is homosexual conduct between consenting female adults in private also to continue not to be an offence?</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
Coming back to the basic philosophy expressed in these two paragraphs, a clear distinction is drawn between crime and<a class="permalink column-permalink" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/nov/26/homosexual-offences-and-prostitution#column_393" id="column_393" name="column_393" rel="bookmark" style="clear: both; float: right; font-style: normal; padding-left: 16px; text-decoration: none;" title="Col. 393 — HC Deb 26 November 1958 vol 596 c393"><br /></a>
sin. In other words, it is argued that the acts of two people committed together should not come within the purview of the criminal law unless it can be shown these acts are harmful to a third party.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
There are two further conceptions brought out in the Report, and I think that they are of the highest importance, namely, that minors must be protected and public decency must not be affronted. If we can accept those propositions—and I for one think that we can—then the way is open to accepting most if not all of the Committee's recommendations or a; least approaching them in a spirit of sympathy.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
I think that we must consider, too, how far the State is justified in punishing the sinful but not necessarily socially harmful acts of two private individuals and whether the result of interference with private life and human liberty does not bring about mare evils than it sets out to prevent.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
In the matter of homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in private the evidence is almost invariably obtained by one or other of the parties turning what is called Queen's evidence and in consideration for not being himself prosecuted giving evidence against his partner. It may be considered as somewhat objectionable that in these circumstances a conviction should depend upon the evidence of an accomplice.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
We have also heard something this afternoon about blackmail. I would only support what has already been said particularly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rossendale. In this connection, I should like to quote a letter which I received two or three days ago from a homosexual when he heard that this subject was being debated in the House this afternoon.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
This is a man who was a consenting adult. He was convicted some years ago on the evidence of his accomplice for an act committed in private and he received and underwent a sentence of imprisonment. On his release from prison he got a job as a clerk in a solicitor's office. He held that job for two or three years and then someone wrote to his employers, sending a cutting of the trial at which he was convicted, and the result was that he lost his job. This is what he wrote to me: <a class="permalink column-permalink" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/nov/26/homosexual-offences-and-prostitution#column_394" id="column_394" name="column_394" rel="bookmark" style="clear: both; float: right; font-style: normal; padding-left: 16px; text-decoration: none;" title="Col. 394 — HC Deb 26 November 1958 vol 596 c394"><br /></a>
<q style="font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 22.66px;">I don't wish to pretend I'm good—but I am like many of the homosexuals, cursed with the thing from the beginning. God in heaven only knows the fights I have put up against it—and I'm sure I'm one of many—and have lost each time. It seems so utterly ridiculous for two men, who wish to live together in their own home, to be classed as criminals and 'sex maniacs.' I know men and women who have committed far, far worse acts than homosexuals look upon us as worse than if we were murderers.</q>
<q style="font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 22.66px;">I do so want to try and make you people look upon this coming debate with kindness and sympathetic consideration and think 'There but for the grace of God go I.' It is all right for people to condemn us so much, but they have no idea of the life of fear and dread we live all the time, in case our friends find out or we are caught. I know I did, and I know the hell I lived in when the police came to me, and I'm still living in hell now! You seem to be 'cut off' from everything, and can get no employment. Just because I was cursed with the homosexual trait, I was no more able to get rid of it than a man could get rid of cancer. It's in you from birth—I feel sure of that. I have studied so many cases and men I have met. When you understand, you feel terribly sorry.</q>
I do not think, having read a letter of that kind, that there is anyone who cannot feel the same spirit of sympathy.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
I confess to a little disappointment that no specific course has been taken, except purely negative, in regard to paragraph 62 of the Report. We have heard and it was said in another place by the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor, when the subject was debated there, that Her Majesty's Government did not think that the time was opportune for legislation now and there could be no prospect of early legislation on the subject.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
Of course, it can be argued that if there is a need to appoint a committee, the whole point of such a committee is that, common opinions on the subject, commonly expressed and canvassed, are often ill-informed and heavily biased by natural repugnance and preconceived moral judgments, and proposals for any change in the law should be based not on popular prejudices, but on accurate information and unbiased consideration of the views of those persons and bodies whose work has brought them into touch with the moral and social issues concerned—in other words, of people who knew what they were talking about. This is what, I think, we have in the Report.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
One argument used by the Home Secretary this afternoon which impressed me was that, if there were no change in the law regarding consenting adults, it <a class="permalink column-permalink" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/nov/26/homosexual-offences-and-prostitution#column_395" id="column_395" name="column_395" rel="bookmark" style="clear: both; float: right; font-style: normal; padding-left: 16px; text-decoration: none;" title="Col. 395 — HC Deb 26 November 1958 vol 596 c395"><br /></a>
would make the weak or weaker-minded individual less likely than if there were a change to be drawn into the homosexual group because the sanction of the criminal law remains. I would have thought—it is purely my own personal opinion—that, in fact, the continuance of this outmoded piece of legislation makes it more likely for such an individual to be drawn into such a group. When Oscar Wilde was sitting in Reading gaol and meditating on the trouble that brought him there, he wrote in "De Profundis", in regard to his conduct, that it was like "feasting with panthers—the danger was half the excitement."</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
I believe that when this reform comes, as undoubtedly it will come, the removal of the sanction of the criminal law will make the possibility of corruption less likely than more likely. So far as public opinion is concerned, it seems to be fairly evenly divided. When the Report was published, 14 months ago, public reactions were less violent than they would have been not so very many years ago. In the Press there were seven national newspapers, with a total combined readership estimated at about 61 per cent. of the population above the age of 16, which gave on the whole a favourable verdict. There were two exceptions, with a combined readership of just under 30 per cent. of the population, which were loud in their condemnation.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
Perhaps a better clue can be provided by the public opinion polls. While a clear majority of those polls were for driving the prostitutes off the streets, rather more than half gave an opinion against the recommendations on homosexuality as they affected consenting adults; but it was not a great majority, only a little more than 50 per cent. What is remarkable is that so many people should have declared themselves in favour of the main change proposed, and the opponents would not appear to be anything like so considerable in numbers as may have been supposed from reading the two newspapers to which I have referred.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
The comparative amount of favourable opinion has undoubtedly been guided, as has been brought out today already, to some extent by the outspoken views of the leading Churches, by the Church of England and the Roman<a class="permalink column-permalink" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/nov/26/homosexual-offences-and-prostitution#column_396" id="column_396" name="column_396" rel="bookmark" style="clear: both; float: right; font-style: normal; padding-left: 16px; text-decoration: none;" title="Col. 396 — HC Deb 26 November 1958 vol 596 c396"><br /></a>
Catholic Church. I think that that is important. Specifically, these views have been expressed by the two Archbishops, the Church Assembly, the Church of England Moral Welfare Council, and by a Roman Catholic committee, as well as many leading spokesmen of the Free Churches. The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have united to say this:
<q style="font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 22.66px;">It is not the business of the State to interfere in the purely private sphere but to act as the defender of the common good.</q>
To conclude what I have to say on this part of the Report I should like to emphasise the fact that three popular fallacies have been exposed by the Report. The first one is that male homosexuality always involves sodomy. In fact, that is far from being so, and the misconception which has arisen is largely due to over-reliance on court cases. Homosexuals who come up in court are not typical, as, indeed, the Report points out. On the contrary, the evidence shows that the great majority of homosexuals merely indulge in an affectionate relationship, conduct which was not criminal in this country before 1885 and which is not criminal in most Continental countries today.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
The second fallacy is that homosexuals are necessarily effeminate in appearance and behaviour and can easily be picked out. This, of course, has been disproved over and over again, particularly by the records of some of them in the last war.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
The third fallacy is that most cases which come before the courts are of practising male homosexuals in private. The evidence again disproves this. There are two instructive tables in the Report, Tables II and VI. Table II makes it clear that the average number of persons against whom proceedings were taken in respect of homosexual offences in the past three years is between 2,400 and 2,500, and Table VI makes it clear that those who were convicted of offences committed in private with consenting adults numbered only 300 over the last three years. So that, in fact, only about one in eight of those prosecuted for homosexual offences come within this latter category. In other words, the considerable majority now penalised for homosexual offences would continue to be so<a class="permalink column-permalink" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/nov/26/homosexual-offences-and-prostitution#column_397" id="column_397" name="column_397" rel="bookmark" style="clear: both; float: right; font-style: normal; padding-left: 16px; text-decoration: none;" title="Col. 397 — HC Deb 26 November 1958 vol 596 c397"><br /></a>
penalised if the main proposal of the Committee became law.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
I come back to the importance of appreciating this point since the Report places great emphasis, as it rightly should, on the protection of minors, and, indeed, in one instance, which I do not think has been mentioned today, it actually proposes to increase the penalty for this type of sexual offence, in paragraph 91, where it is proposed that for an offence between an adult and a juvenile aged from 16 to 21, in circumstances not amounting to indecent assault, the maximum penalty should be raised from two years' imprisonment to five years'.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
When Oscar Wilde came out of prison arid published "The Ballad of Reading Gaol", George Ives, the criminologist and historian of our criminal law, wrote congratulating him on his poem and expressing the view that the law on homosexual offences should be amended. Wilde replied in these words:
<q style="font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 22.66px;">Yes. I have no doubt we shall win. But the road is long, and red with monstrous martyrdoms. Nothing but the repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment Act would do any goad. That is essential. It is not so much public opinion, as public official, that need educating.</q>
I venture to think that those words are as true today as they were when they were written sixty years ago.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
Now I want to say just a word or two on Part Three of the Report. Like the homosexual, the prostitute is an outcast in modern society, but with this important difference: she is not a criminal. What the Wolfenden Committee has done is, first, to acknowledge that prostitution is as old as civilisation, and, secondly, to advise that its conduct should be confined to strict privacy. In other words, the Committee accepts the fact that no change in the law, however severe, is likely to abolish prostitution. What can, however, be abolished, or at least mitigated, is the nuisance of public soliciting.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
I quoted a letter from a homosexual. Let me quote a letter from a prostitute. It reads as follows:
<q style="font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 22.66px;">Why do you trouble yourself with long letters'? I want 50 gold pieces but no letters. If, therefore, you love me, pay up; but if you love your money more, then you needn't bother me any more. Goodbye.</q>
That was not written yesterday, but 2,500 years ago. It is one of the more interesting but less edifying fragments of Greek literature of that period which has come down to us.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
The Report makes two recommendations that the requirement of annoyance be eliminated, and an increased range of penalties for soliciting. Personally, I agree with the hon. Member for Rossendale. I feel very uneasy about the annoyance proposal. As he has very rightly pointed out, it was proposed to drop this requirement at the time of the debates in this House on the Criminal Law Amendment Act in 1885, and it was not proceeded with for the reasons which have been adduced by the hon. Gentleman.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
To drop this requirement would, in my opinion, put great powers in the hands of the police, which could be abused, and if it is incorporated in new legislation it could mean that any woman walking up and down Bond Street and looking into the shop windows could be picked up at the whim of a police officer and charged with soliciting. I do not suggest that that is likely to happen very often, but the possibility would be there, and the tendency also to encourage corruption among the police.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
I think that we should remember the words of John Stuart Mill when giving evidence before the Royal Commission on the Contagious Diseases Acts, which regulated the activities of prostitutes for a time in the third quarter of the last century and which were later shown to have been abused and were repealed. He said:
<q style="font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 22.66px;">When power is given which may easily be abused, we ought always to assume that it will he abused, and although it is possible that great precautions will he taken at first, those precautions are likely to be relaxed in time.</q>
We should think very carefully before this requirement is allowed to go.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
As for new penalties or range of penalties, I think that to increase the fines is reasonable having regard to the changed value of money since the penalties were originally introduced, but again I am very doubtful of the wisdom of giving magistrates powers to pass up to three months' imprisonment for third and subsequent offences. I am doubtful of the efficacy of imprisonment as a remedy for prostitution.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
There is also the proposed power that magistrates should be able to remand in custody for a maximum of three weeks a prostitute for social and medical reports. I think that that must be watched very carefully as well. If that proposal is to be put into effect, a prostitute should certainly not be remanded to a prison at all, but to a properly constituted remand centre.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
I have spoken long enough already, and I shall say nothing about the other proposals, the very impressive proposals, about premises and living on immoral earnings, which I support. We should remember that in our understandable anxiety to clean up the streets there is a danger that when prostitutes are driven off the streets the process may lead to vice being organised on a more alarming scale. I need not remind the House of the "call-girl" racket, which has developed to such an extent in New York and other North American cities. Nevertheless, I think that the Wolfenden Committee has tried to grapple with this problem of prostitution, which I think we all recognise, especially since some of the streets in our own capital city and some of our provincial cities really are a national disgrace and, to my knowledge, deeply shock foreign visitors who come to our shores.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke, as I was very pleased to hear him speak, about his distinguished great aunt, Josephine Butler, who did so much to reclaim women from the streets, and who said:
<q style="font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 22.66px;">The law shall be equal for all whether it protect or punish.</q>
If the Wolfenden Report has done nothing else, it has at least shown that in respect of two members of the community, namely, the male homosexual and the female prostitute, Josephine Butler's dictum still leaves much to be desired.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.66px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
There is a plain duty cast upon Her Majesty's Government and upon the House by the Wolfenden Report to make an honest attempt to put these grave matters right.
</div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><br />Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-61094988666383159522018-11-10T23:44:00.001+00:002018-11-11T00:02:08.772+00:00The Sad Ballad of Marine One and Rain #TrumpRainOnce upon a time, not so long ago, Marine One was able to fly through wind and rain.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg68V-y73fOaMAFMgIxbVHRRoXVMVLiqy9oWQO4kprvdGQsOZbIXsq4QMBYHRHDtZJdnYYTS8OHosrEP7Ybb4AU4qrShBTc2706IiQjU1tqAISGToSAOfh3uiQXU9I7yDoJs6UMgHGhfHcV/s1600/Marine+One+Rain+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="420" data-original-width="580" height="231" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg68V-y73fOaMAFMgIxbVHRRoXVMVLiqy9oWQO4kprvdGQsOZbIXsq4QMBYHRHDtZJdnYYTS8OHosrEP7Ybb4AU4qrShBTc2706IiQjU1tqAISGToSAOfh3uiQXU9I7yDoJs6UMgHGhfHcV/s320/Marine+One+Rain+1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span id="goog_1689802376"></span><span id="goog_1689802377"></span><br />
<br />
It wasn't even a Democrat plot even Republican CinCs did it.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwunp_rEHbH_iLZml2R1w24QY4zsi5jtDIV-q40dPYbJ1Om5DuoSecVzHeloAIGunKdfbWmIObjID9X8I63OzBhLFQz8iBHb7Xzt_h8DcZD-8mT-4Or9zJH3Qm0RKgoyjKRkGdK2bs95rf/s1600/Marine+One+Rain+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="567" data-original-width="513" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwunp_rEHbH_iLZml2R1w24QY4zsi5jtDIV-q40dPYbJ1Om5DuoSecVzHeloAIGunKdfbWmIObjID9X8I63OzBhLFQz8iBHb7Xzt_h8DcZD-8mT-4Or9zJH3Qm0RKgoyjKRkGdK2bs95rf/s320/Marine+One+Rain+2.jpg" width="289" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Age was also no barrier as the eldest President ever managed rain on Marine One.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8jgtmmSHkQk4CSUuEQcudKzQY4Wkr8OEDCqUmrAA5zjKhvzgkeAn0SSgSgdioeD4DvxtVBFUs5XfNPw9M31qP4otvGNN_CL8NyBQicutblKeaa0iJyBQ5AU0AscnxB4S1q0U7FISdS-kg/s1600/Marine+One+Rain+3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="421" data-original-width="645" height="208" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8jgtmmSHkQk4CSUuEQcudKzQY4Wkr8OEDCqUmrAA5zjKhvzgkeAn0SSgSgdioeD4DvxtVBFUs5XfNPw9M31qP4otvGNN_CL8NyBQicutblKeaa0iJyBQ5AU0AscnxB4S1q0U7FISdS-kg/s320/Marine+One+Rain+3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
But in this day and age, even with a visit to a World War One cemetery at stake, health and security makes this no longer possible...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihUN3otDKntDWZfzrrIkF6NpfbSTLPiQ-pnPgn_-cfhswGetTHGqtVE99H_d5a_Rcd8uAJ_O4uC0HWd84Ru5TW-_rzbYtq4vINwjnKa8zEEoM9VC43yKzsF_-gOFxf6Cd-e9Rh7fE555Ek/s1600/Marine+One+Rain+4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="569" data-original-width="927" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihUN3otDKntDWZfzrrIkF6NpfbSTLPiQ-pnPgn_-cfhswGetTHGqtVE99H_d5a_Rcd8uAJ_O4uC0HWd84Ru5TW-_rzbYtq4vINwjnKa8zEEoM9VC43yKzsF_-gOFxf6Cd-e9Rh7fE555Ek/s320/Marine+One+Rain+4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
...hang on isn't that Trump, Marine One and rain?<br /><br /><br /><br />
As five of my relatives' bodies were never recovered from the mud that was France and Flanders in World War I, I consider this excuse for not attending a war cemetery disrespectful to all the war dead, of all nations who fought in World War I. Their names alone are on walls around the battlefields. WE WILL REMEMBER THEMStephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-17949190799780733262018-11-07T11:00:00.000+00:002018-11-07T11:00:00.293+00:00We Will Remember Them: Edward Launders d. 7 Nov 1918LAUNDERS EDWARD<br />
United Kingdom Signaller Royal Field Artillery "D" Bty. 162nd Bde. Age: 20 Date of Death: 07/11/1918 Service No: 262577 A.3.<br />
<br />
In four days time well be remember all those who fell in both World Wars as we mark the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918 when the Armistice was signed and First World War came to an end. It is possible that in one house in Yorkshire that celebration was the same as the rest of the nation, looking forward to the time that they would see their elder surviving son once again. But is it likely they within days their celebrations we cut shot when the fearful letter came through the door. Like many families while others were celebrating the end of war, they were coming to terms with the fact that their son was so close to seeing the end of the war, only to be cut down. He is the last of those from my family tree that I shall be looking at in this series.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3E40pQ1PeTbxOEuILBuq3BTLDpPWClOp6Y_Mb29nR__TUO737-30v0crj8BtJ7o76tEbZZ94AObimJnZWYH4cwn7idxWghLDzB4iDbbKfbUkVVZUE9vs65azkMgpV1pACt7pftSxSGuJz/s1600/Edward+Launders+Relationship.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3E40pQ1PeTbxOEuILBuq3BTLDpPWClOp6Y_Mb29nR__TUO737-30v0crj8BtJ7o76tEbZZ94AObimJnZWYH4cwn7idxWghLDzB4iDbbKfbUkVVZUE9vs65azkMgpV1pACt7pftSxSGuJz/s1600/Edward+Launders+Relationship.jpg" height="250" width="400" /></a></div>
Edward Launders is related though the following connections. His father's sister had married a Jones in Yorkshire. One of the nephews of that aunt was a Prisoner of War in the conflict who was later to marry my great aunt (a lady I was never to meet she dying six years before I was born. That relationship (as with the others I have written about in this series) is graphically shown (right).<br />
<br />
Edward was born in Grimesthorpe, Sheffield, Yorkshire in early 1898, to John Thomas Launders and Bessie Cripps. On the 1911 census when he was just 13 he was an apprentice moulder at one of the Iron works in the city. His father on the 1901 census was recorded as a furnace man at steel works, but by 1911 appears to be either a lincekeeper (or maybe timekeeper). Along with his four sisters (two elder and two younger) and infant brother who at one two would be too young to be involved in the war.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRgtD23c4ptTPWuRIKvEVKwwtuGIgwNISNke18JBihJf59FFVpIGF7afnPvCkGGrJRbWWQrsvYwtzc_JMnBVyysj8spfFxWAPQrc28cDEefkuNp7P-_Idsh6cENwCXK0C_3jMA1Oy96RCL/s1600/Edward+Launders+Grimesthorpe+Memorial.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRgtD23c4ptTPWuRIKvEVKwwtuGIgwNISNke18JBihJf59FFVpIGF7afnPvCkGGrJRbWWQrsvYwtzc_JMnBVyysj8spfFxWAPQrc28cDEefkuNp7P-_Idsh6cENwCXK0C_3jMA1Oy96RCL/s1600/Edward+Launders+Grimesthorpe+Memorial.jpg" height="259" width="320" /></a></div>
He joined the Royal Field Artillery and was a signalman with the. He would have been involved in the last offensive of his unit the Battle of the Selle, which he returned from, they were relieved by the 38th Welsh Division on the night of the 26th October 1918 after capturing Englefontaine. They spent a period of rest at Troisvilles before re-entering the line on 5 November advancing through Forêt de Mormal. On the 7th November they were on a line east of the Avesnes-Maubeuge road. But one of the victims in achieving this goal was Edward who fell on that day. That evening his Division was relieved again by the Welsh and retired to Sambre valley near Leval. His division never saw active duty again before the Armistice therefore making him one of their last fatalities.<br />
<br />
His name is amongst those residents of Grimesthorpe that was listed on the memorial that used to hang in St Thomas' Church, Holywell Street in the town (see above). <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Signaller Edward Launders </b><br />
<b>Born Jan 1898 Grimesthorpe, Sheffield, Yorkshire</b><br />
<b>Died 7 November 1918 between Maubeuge and Avesnes-sur-Helpe, France<br /><br />We will remember him.</b>Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-54824807837620638112018-10-13T13:26:00.000+01:002018-10-13T13:26:12.635+01:00The real toll of the battle for LGBT+ recognition in Northern IrelandIt has been a tough few days for me at the end of the week. When the UK Supreme Court ruling was made, on International Day for Mental Health Awareness of all days, it was tough mentally to go along with the tough time I've been having physically returning to work after a long time off with sciatica.<br />
<br />
It wasn't so much the fact that this time the opinion went in the favour of the McArthur family who run Ashers it was the comments, "celebrations", attack on the Equality Commission and everything else. What was worse is that many of the arguments were being retrod from the 5th or even 6th time since the event.<br />
<br />
Now with a court decision in their favour those opposed to LGBT+ equality or even recognition and dignity for LGBT+ people were speaking as if nothing was ever wrong.<br /><br />The same arguments that Ashers shop on the main shopping street of Belfast had been targeted, when it was merely convenient. That the appellant was only out for money, he wasn't indeed he was shocked to be awarded £500 in the original case, he only wanted the law to be clarified. That somehow promoting LGBT+ Equality is equated with messages of outright hate and should all be lumped up together is one of the hardest hitting.<br /><br /><br />You see many of us in Northern Ireland have been facing arguments that we are attacking religious freedom, despite many of us coming from a position of faith ourselves. Indeed Marriage Equality legislation and policy formation has consistently recognised that not all faith groups have the same opinion. Indeed we have always ensured that faith groups need freedom under Equal Marriage legislation to take their own positions, nothing should be imposed on them. However, certain faith groups don't envision this and even want to overstep into the civil marriage sphere over which they should have no control.<br />
<br />
So when you see LGBT+ people in Northern Ireland showing despair with the interventions of Peter Tatchell it is because his comments gave powder to the Theocrats in Northern Ireland. Sadly although Northern Ireland poses as a democracy, despite the largest party being called the Democratic Unionist Party what we face and they are, are actually Theocrats. God's law by their narrow interpretation has to have authority over everyone else.<br /><br />Not all Christian politicians take this view Alliance leader Naomi Long and her predecessor David Ford are two prime examples who face attacks from Christians and criticism from LGBT+ people in equal measure. They are an example along with other that having a faith doesn't mean attacking LGBT+ people and that faith and being LGBT+ are not exclusive sets, there is a subset of both.<br /><br /><br />So faith groups, publications and individuals rejoicing this week has a hard impact on those of us from the LGBT+ community, whether of faith or not, who try to accommodate them.<br /><br /><br />A bit late in the week but I wasn't in a good place to wish everyone good mental health earlier in the week, But stay strong people others are always there for you to turn to and you know who they are even in your darkest times.Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.com0