Dear all, An Apology - My part in Brexit - ALLEGEDY

Dear all,

According to Charles Moore (in yesterday's Daily Fail)  the UK would not have voted for Brexit if David Cameron had not forced through Same Sex Marriage. So of course this would not have happened if Lynne Featherstone had not raised the issue even though it was not in the coalition agreement.

But Lynne wouldn't have been able to raise it in cabinet had it not been Liberal Democrat policy after it adoption at Liberal Democrat conference in Autumn 2010. However, it also might not have been Federal Policy had not the Scottish party passed it as policy at their spring conference that Spring. It is for that first ripple that today I issue my apology and my part in our nation's downfall.

When Kieran Leach and I were researching the issues surrounding Same Sex marriage ahead of drafting the motion to conference an exit from the EU did not seem to have been an issue. At that time Belgium, (since 2000), Netherlands (2001), Spain (2005) nor Sweden (2009) had shown any inclination of leaving the EU as the result of their passing Equal Marriage legislation. It was also not an issue that the couple of speakers against the motion at that Spring Conference in Perth failed to raise as a consequence of what we were proposing. If we have missed out on some great piece of research that Charles Moore is privy to which states a correlation between Same Sex Marriage and exiting the EU we can only apologise.

As there is now a clear causal influence of being unable to remain within the EU and the passing of equal marriage or same-sex marriage legislation Kieran and myself can only apologise to the people of Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Ireland, Portugal, Luxembourg, France and Denmark for their impending exits from the EU family. We would also ask Finland to carefully reconsider their agreement to introduce same-sex marriages on 1 March 2017 if they want to remain.

We just did not that the flapping of this butterflies wings could be so catastrophic.

Yours
Stephen Glenn
Chair of Northern Ireland Liberal Democrats
Exec Member of LGBT+ Liberal Democrats Committee

PS Please take all of the above with tongue firmly in cheek.

Daily Fail demanding an apology on grounds that sound familiar

"I don't think we need to apologise for anything. This was a piece which examined somebody's views very carefully.

"I think there are people out there who need to apologise to us because there have been vicious accusations in the last couple of days, from (former Labour leader) Neil Kinnock among others, that somehow this was an anti-semitic attack."

So said the Daily Mail's City Editor Alex Blummer to Radio 4's Today programme.

However, the "Man who hated Britain" headline was taken from comments made in his youth as he arrived in this country having fled the Nazis in Belgium. However, as Ralph Miliband's biographer, Michael Newman, wrote in The Guardian even these teenage diary entries were taken out of context.

So the Daily Mail are claiming that people are claiming they are anti-semitic. Now a lot of that attention comes from what the Daily Mail was writing during the war, around about the same time as a 16 year-old Ralph Miliband was writing his early thoughts about his adopted homeland in his diary. There was praise for the Black Shirts, anger against the number of aliens who had entered the country and the owner visiting with the Furher.

Yeah the Daily Mail are thinking that people owe them apology for looking at their writings some 70 years ago and associating those thoughts with the actions of today. Somehow they still can't see that the way their presented the story about Ralph Miliband saying not once but twice on separate days that he hated Britain, a nation that as soon as he was old enough he joined the Royal Navy to fight against the atrocities that he had experienced from the Nazis, fighting for freedom to have his own thoughts as well as those of everyone else.

Fisking some of 118 Tory MPs on Marriage Equality

So the Daily Fail (apologies for this link) are naming 118 Tory MPs who are liable to vote against marriage equality, in the biggest sign of just how much the Conservative party haven't changed on LGBT issues since the last time Westminster voted on any.

So I shall fisk in red each of the statements from those quoted:

"I Marvel at why we're bringing this forward. There is no clamour for this at all within the gay community." Conor Burns - Bournemouth West

I've already dealt with the Belfast born, gay, MP's comments earlier (see here) 

"I believe marriage is an institution ordained to sanctify a union between a man and a woman. If a vote is called, I shall vote in accordance to my beliefs." David Jones - Clwyd West

I need to define a couple of words to start this so the free dictionary says:

or·dain  
tr.v.

1.

a. To invest with ministerial or priestly authority; confer holy orders on.

b. To authorize as a rabbi.

2. To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact.

3. To prearrange unalterably

sanc·ti·fy  

tr.v. 

1. To set apart for sacred use; consecrate.

2. To make holy; purify.

3. To give religious sanction to, as with an oath or vow.

4. To give social or moral sanction to.

5. To make productive of holiness or spiritual blessing.

Yeah you get that, both words have significant religious connotations. So for something to be ordained to sanctify something surely it has to be religious. So would Mr Jones be voting, if there one called to do away with civil marriage?

"I share the view of a great many Christians and people of other faiths who have a strong conception of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. When it comes to redefining the concept of marriage in law, I don't think that Parliament should seek to alter the current position." Stephen Crabb - Preseli Pembrokeshire

Time for another definition:

 Conception
n.

1.

a. Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.

b. The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote.

 
2.

a. The ability to form or understand mental concepts and abstractions.

b. Something conceived in the mind; a concept, plan, design, idea, or thought.

I take it he refers to the latter. So it is only an understanding of a mental concept. Like once we thought the earth was flat, the earth was the centre of the universe, we mocked Einstein's theory of relativity, or continental drift. So see out conception of so much has changed as our understanding has grown. The last two of those in the last hundred years and indeed at the same time that we were actually coming to terms that gay sex should be allowed. Conceptions change and unlike Mr Burns Mr Crabb doesn't say that everyone is of the same opinion I know a number of people of faith Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Straight who all want to allow faith groups that want to to carry out same sex marriage. They have a different concept of marriage yet the same faith.

"I remain concerned that re-defining marriage is unnecessary given the established legal rights, which effectively mirror marriage, for same-sex couples through civil partnerships." Esther McVey - Wirral West

If something were effectively giving a true representation of something else in mirroring it everything would be the same. We would have civil and religious ceremonies, of course we don't. We have the legal rights but only one of the options is open. Any same-sex couple of faith has to leave their god, favourite Hymns of religious passages at the door if they want to be joined in civil partnership. 

"I think there is something a little arrogant about ministers supposing that it is for them to redefine communal rules that have existed for centuries." Douglas Carswell - Clacton

First off this is going to a vote in the commons the ministers aren't doing it without the representatives of the people having a say, isn't that the way our parliament works. Second there are some rather ridiculous and outmoded communal rules still on the statute book, that is the point that the Lib Dems raised in the General Election a Great Repeal Act to do away with some of them, some of them have been around for centuries and serve no purpose in the 21st Century. This is being taken forward by Government, how arrogant of them!

 "People's private lives are a matter for them. Marriage on the other hand is not an entirely private matter. It is a civil institution.

"If, as I hope, there is a free vote in Parliament on this  issue as it is a matter of conscience, I shall be voting against the law to introduce marriage between homosexuals." John Hayes - South Holland and the Deepings

 I agree with the first paragraph of the above. The first sentence being key. It is a matter for each individual, no body else marriage impinges on the marriage of anyone else. It is a civil institution. 

James Wharton  - Stockport South "unique religious connotation of marriage"

I refer you to the answer I gave to David Jones, there are such things as civil marriage. These have not hindered people of faith having religious marriages, they have merely allowed those that don't adhere to a faith to get married without making oaths before a god they do not believe in (or maybe just share or doesn't look kindly of their divorce).

"As a Christian, I am only too aware of the controversies, not only surrounding this issue but others to do with equality.

"While I fully support civil partnerships, which I believe allows two gay people to declare their lifelong commitment to each other, I am afraid that at this stage, the concept of gay marriage [sic] is too much in advance of public opinion and I am afraid that I would not support it in a vote in the commons." Simon Burns - Chelmsford

also

"I shall almost certainly be voting against any proposal to bring forward gay marriage. I do not consider myself to be homophobic, but, apart from anything else I do not think there is any demand for this." Andrew Robothan - Blaby

I'm afraid to tell Mr Burns that there is only one recent opinion poll that shows public opinion that anyone claims is against "marriage equality". That was when Catholic Voice  but didn't actually ask a question about expanding marriage yet was used to claim that 70% of people objected to it. As for Mr Rothbothan similarly deciding something purely on demand while very free market in outlook, fails on the basis that there obviously is some demand or else it would have got this far.

I believe that Parliamentary legislation should focus on those issues that matter to most people across the country: safeguarding their well-being and restoring the economy to health." Andrew Tyrie - Chichester

Strangley at the end of last month Mr Tyrie who is chairman of the Treasury Select Committee found time to vote on the issue of circus animal wellfare. Of course due his his committee chairmanship most of his utterances in the House have been on economic matters, but of course Parliament does talk about other things, and as I have mentioned before even during the war other things were discussed rather than just war related business.

"I wish it were not happening...don't try and tamper with the timeless concept and meaning of marriage, which for most of us means one man and one woman."

Well if marriage's definition is so timeless how come the bible had so many ways to define it.

 

 Update: Interestingly the Daily Mail have removed Conor Burns and a full list of names from its article.

Daily Fail misreport courts ruling on prayers

Seeing this mornings Daily Mail (paper edition) front page you would almost believe that David Cameron, or at least the personage of Ken Clarke in his role as Lord Chancellor had declared war on Marx's opiate of the masses.

The two stories that sparked the headline

CHRISTIANITY UNDER ATTACK


with the subheader

Anger as TWO major court ruling go against British worshippers


Refers of course the case in Bideford Council and the failed appeal of Cornish guest house owners [both links to non Daily Fail coverage].

First lets us look at the ruling on prayers before council meetings. The Mail screams out that these are now banned. Here are the words of Mr Justice Ouseley who ruled on that case:

"A local authority has no powers under section 111 of theLocal Government Act 1972 to hold prayers as part of a formal local authority meeting or to summon councillors to such a meeting at which prayers are on the agenda. 

"The saying of prayers in a local authority chamber before a formal meeting of such a body is lawful provided councillors are not formally summoned to attend."

Hang on  there! Far from being banned the judge said it was lawful to hold prayers before a council meeting. What wasn't lawful for requiring ALL councillors to have to attend.

If the calling to order of the council meeting occurs after the prayers are said and councillors who do not wish to partake in them have a chance to enter the chamber then no harm is done. In other words prayer is allowed, just don't force everyone to take part in it against their own conscious. Something that Christians also want to be allowed to do themselves.

The second, which happens to be the result of the appeal hearing, just happened to be delivered on the same day. It is the case of the Christian guest B&B owners who prevented a civil partnered homosexual couple from staying in a double room.

On this occasion we turn to the ruling of Lady Justice Rafferty.

"Whilst the appellants' beliefs about sexual practise may not find the acceptance that once they did, nevertheless a democratic society must ensure that their espousal and expression remain open to those who hold them.

"It would be unfortunate to replace legal oppression of one community (homosexual couples) with legal oppression of another (those sharing the appellants' beliefs).

"However, in a pluralist society it is inevitable that from time to time, as here, views, beliefs and rights of some are not compatible with those of others. As I have made plain, I do not consider that the appellants face any difficulty in manifesting their religious beliefs. They are merely prohibited from so doing in the commercial context they have chosen."

So here we have a judgement that says the the Christian owners had no issue in expressing and manifesting their beliefs, however they had entered a trade of hospitality. The point was made at the time of the judgement had they checked the marriage certificate of every "heterosexual couple" who had turned up at their guesthouse to book a double room. Their objection had been to the fact that the couple were not in marriage of a man and a woman and they would not let them share a room. One wonders what the report would have been if one of the 'of faith' civil partnered couples that I know had been the couple in question? Because then you would have had two potentially christian couples of differing opinions on either side of this debate.

In both cases there was no hindrance in worshippers actually worshipping. What there was however, was protection under the law for those that are not worshippers, or at least don't not believe the same as the worshippers in question.

If Christians want to maintain freedom of their religion they really must stop attacking others options to opt out of their belief system.

Apparently it is controversial to be "evidence based" #DailyFail

It is with great delight that I link to the is Daily Mail story.

The reason is in the opening line where the Daily Fail say:

"Senior Liberal Democrat MPs have escalated their controversial campaign to force the Government into decriminalising drugs."

The controversy of course is that Tom Brake has laid down parliamentary Early Day Motion 2404 which states:

"That this House notes the serious harm caused by drugs; recognises the need for evidence-based policy making with a clear focus on prevention and harm-reduction; and calls on the Government to establish an independent panel tasked with carrying out an impact assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, reviewing the approach adopted by other countries, and making recommendations for reform."

It calls for an independent review on drug policy, it calls for recommendations to be based on evidence. Yes this may prove controversial as it may very be that evidence suggests that the safest way for drug addicts to get their drugs is through monitored medical sources rather than through street suppliers who mix all sorts of contaminants into their supply in order to get greater value for money. Many of these are more deadly than the  drug use itself, that if proved by evidence may lead to a licensing of certain classes of drugs so that supply and quality can be guaranteed and so that life and support to wean off drugs can be monitored.

It may well lead to a revenue stream for government through licensing of such supply.

But the key element of the so-called controversial proposal is that it is evidence based. With such a knee-jerk response from the Daily Fail the one thing they don't want it the evidence to be looked into carefully as it may shake their world view.

Nick Clegg terrorised on flight for supporting the Human Rights Act

Warning this blog post contains a link to the Daily Mail


So the Daily Fail has a headline Woman passenger's jet rage at Nick Clegg over his support of Human Rights Act. The article contains the line "David Cameron pledged while in opposition to scrap the Human Rights Act (HRA), which he said prevented Britain from deporting foreign terrorists." While talking about a passenger who had to be physically restrained from an onslaught against the Deputy Prime Minister.

Apparently according to the Fail the physical assault and terrorism by one woman is a sign that many are angry at the deputy Prime Minister for vowing to keep the HRA. One person in an incident of air rage is the voice of the people! Wow! Those Occupying the London Stock Exchange (or to be precise a public space close by) certainly seem glad of the rights under the HRA.

No doubt as her attack happened over international territory and I trust over the EU, she'll be glad that it will mean she is entitled to a fair trail, unlike if it had occurred once off the plane in Cairo. That her liberty and security as well as those of the other passengers were protected by her being restrained because of her attack. That she won't be tortured or face the death penalty for attacking another passenger on a plane. That she wasn't deemed to be a threat to the plane so much that she may have been shot by an air marshall, but that the life of everyone on that plane was protected, even hers. That she was allowed her freedom of conscience to make her points to the DPM. She also had her freedom of expression until it was restricted when it reached into the realm of needing to prevent disorder and crime.

Yeah you've guessed it I've just stated her case in relation to six of the ten articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. You'd almost feel that a majority of people had voted for a party that was opposed to the HRA in May 2010. It's not just the Lib Dems on page 9:3 of A Future Fair for All the Labour Manifesto they say

"We are proud to have brought in the Human Rights Act, enabling British citizens to take action in British courts rather than having to wait years to seek redress in Strasbourg. We will not repeal or resile from it."

So there you have it, there is no public will to get rid of the HRA. There is only a Tory will that ignores the many fine points in it because it gets in the way of them doing things that they want to do, even more so than the Liberal Democrats it seems.

Read also What Zadok Day over at A Song of Liberty actually found to be what happened, but that sort of mutually respecting conversation doesn't sell the Daily Fail or the Scum.

Cat on a HRA Tin Roof?

Did you hear the one about Theresa May, the Human Right's Act and the Cat?

Well earlier today the Conservative Home Secretary said in her speech to the Tory faithful.

We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act. The violent drug dealer who cannot be sent home because his daughter – for whom he pays no maintenance – lives here. The robber who cannot be removed because he has a girlfriend. The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had pet a cat.

Only she was kidding them somewhat.

The cat wasn't the reason that the immigrant couldn't be deported but was merely evidence that the immigrant had a relationship of some time standing. Indeed as the Telegraph at the time reported.

As part of the application and as part of the appeal, the couple gave detailed statements of the life they had built together in the UK to show the genuine nature and duration of their relationship. One detail provided, among many, was that they had owned a cat together for some time.

The appeal was successful and when giving the reasons for the success the judge did comment on the couple's cat. It was taken into account as part of the couple's life together. The Home Office asked for the decision to be reconsidered. They argued it should be reconsidered because the decision was wrong in law, and one error they cited was that too much consideration was given to the couple's cat. 

The home secretary mentioned the case in the context of her plans to change the rules to stop convicted criminals resisting deportations on the basis of article 8 – family ties. But the Bolivian man – who has never been named – was not even a convicted criminal.

So not only was the cat only part of circumstantial evidence that the man was in a relationship with another human being, not a feline, but also he wasn't a criminal as the Home Secretary, whose remit includes policing and immigration, almost seemed to imply by adding him to this list.

Indeed the Home Office had failed to carry out its own procedures regarding unmarried partners which is why the cat and the other factors were brought up to show that the relationship status was that of partners not housemates. So British authorities had failed to acknowledge their own procedures in bringing this man before  British judges seeking to expel him.

Ken Clarke has even challenged her that nobody has even been refused deportation purely because they owned a cat. However, May has been back pedaling since she left the stage saying that the fact checking of her speech was done from the press, maybe she puts too much trust in the Daily Mail's reporting of this story. Why not the court papers themselves to which she would have access?

May got a knee jerk reaction to her speech from the conference faithful, just as Nick Clegg gained a great cheer for saying we would not be scrapping the Human Rights Act in his speech at Lib Dem Conference. The difference is that Nick Clegg knows the history of the Human Rights Act, as he demonstrated in his speech, Theresa May was just playing to the crowd.

We are right to stand up for civil liberties. No retreat to the illiberal populism of the Labour years. We are right to insist on keeping the tax system fair. Asking the most of the people who have the most. And we will always defend human rights, at home as well as abroad. The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act are not, as some would have you believe, foreign impositions. These are British rights, drafted by British lawyers. Forged in the aftermath of the atrocities of the Second World War. Fought for by Winston Churchill. So let me say something really clear about the Human Rights Act. In fact I'll do it in words of one syllable: It is here to stay. Nick Clegg in Birmingham 21 September 

Update The BBC have made it possible download the original judgement here

Notes:

The European Court of Human Rights came into being21 January 1959 by virtue of Article 19 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Convention was founded out of the Council of Europe at the end of World War II.

The Council and what it were seen as required to do were laid out by a speech from Winston Churchill on (fortuitously for my memory my birthday) 19 September, 1946.

In the meantime some cats.

Daily Fail publish the story they wanted about Amanda Knox

At 8:50pm the Daily Fail published the news from Perugia. Only it wasn't the news that all the rest of us were seeing.

In what appears to have been a pre-written story ready to go live when the verdict was give the Daily Mail is unique in not actually reporting the news. As events were happening on the 24 hour rolling news the Fail decided to print the following (I'm fisking in red)

Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman also ruled that Raffaele Sollecito, 27, Knox's former boyfriend, should remain in jail and confirmed the original 25-year sentence on the computer studies graduate.

Making up the verdict of a judge, isn't that contempt of court?

As Knox realized the enormity of what judge Hellman was saying she sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears.

There were no seats everyone, including Amanda was standing. She did slump but into her sister's arms.

A few feet away Meredith's mother Arline, her sister Stephanie and brother Lyle, who had flown in especially for the verdict remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family.

Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said that 'justice has been done' although they said on a 'human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail'.

Of course it was the defence team who were saying that Justice had been done. But that we mustn't forget Meredith whose young live had been ruined in such a voilent way.

So someone at the Daily Fail had written the News before it had happened. Someone had published it when this wasn't what was happening. The Daily Fail have shown that they don't care about facts, in fact they will write the story that they want. Nick Pisa whose byline is on this piece is no more than a writer of fiction, not a very good foreteller of the future and a poor excuse for a journalist, but then look at the excuse of a newspaper that he works for.

Update The page has since been taken down. But I have screen prints of the entire article.

Just who is infantile Richard Littlejohn?

***WARNING THIS BLOG POST LINKS TO THE DAILY FAIL***


You'd expect the Daily Mail to condemn us Liberal Democrats it is something that they do on a regular basis. However, Richard Littlejohn takes the biscuit today.

He says that Lib Dem delegates at conference, so that by that he includes me, are infantile for cheering Nick Clegg for defending Human Rights and the Human Rights Acts. Only of course Littlejohn doesn't call it that he calls is yuman rites, when it comes to terrorist suspects.

Here is news for Mr Littlejohn all suspects are just that suspects until proven otherwise. What is worse even if they are convicted they are still human.

But Littlejohn suggests being able to detain terrorist suspects indefinitely without trial or with a trail but before a kangaroo court. We've done that before in the UK it was called internment and it took place in Northern Ireland in the 70s. You know what it did, it acted as a major recruitment aid to the terrorists groups as others saw those interned as martyrs. So go on Mr Littlejohn learn nothing from recent history, don't try and learn anything from the present and just stoke the fires of hatred see how much safer that makes the people of the UK.

Letts pick a window and head back to Victorian Times

It may have been OK for Quentin Letts who's earl,y schooling took place at Oakley Hall Preparatory School run by Richard Letts Pere to Letts, Q.R.S. His father was around, if in the headmaster's office, when he was growing up.

However, seeing as the man lists his hobbies in Who's Who as including "character defenestration" he should really have looked a little more closely before picking a window to attack Miriam González Durántez, the wife of Nick Clegg in today's Daily Fail. For a start her name is within the Spanish convention where even married women will keep the name of their father and mother. She married an English man, so the concession she got for her sons not being called Clegg Gonzales was that they would have Spanish given names.

But unto the fact that Nick Clegg wants to have some family time, so too does the Prime Minister David Cameron and the Leader of the Opposition Ed Milliband. All three have young families, as do the last two Prime Ministers. But this isn't necessarily a new thing, we are aware from watching the Kennedys that even then they struggled to balance family time with political leadership. The job of First Lady was tough of Jackie, just as the role of Miriam as a International renowned lawyer is, but then the last Prime Minister to have a child in office also had an internationally renowned lawyer as a wife one Cherie Booth Q.C. , AKA Mrs A.C.L. Blair.

Of course many mothers and fathers up and down the country balance two career these days. From the poorest to the richest families there are often two people of equal ability and earning potential in the same household.

Who should give up their job to look after the offspring?

Actually neither should need to give up what they are doing to be able to provide for their family. Indeed there is now moves afoot to improve paternity leave, something the Richard Letts no doubt didn't benefit from, as fathers then didn't even attend the birth, but paced the corridors outside. They didn't get time off work but turned up after they had left the office, or in his case school.

Things have moved on, if not in the case of equal pay, or equal numbers in the boardrooms. Therefore when there is a successful woman like Miriam, they are still sadly a rarity. Yet people like Letts still think they should give up their careers, lessen the world of their skills when their husbands become politically powerful and in key roles. Of course political careers at the highest level can be short lived, and for Lib Dems that may be very true at the moment. Whereas Samantha Cameron has put her career on partial hold as a part-time consultant, instead of the creative director for her old firm, Miriam was the head of her division, a five year suspension would put her behind her colleagues, some male and some female who probably also have working spouses, but not as high profile.

Personally I'm glad that we live in a 21st Century where women don't have to quit their jobs upon becoming pregnant, but are a part of the workforce, a part of the intelligentsia, a part of political leadership or civic leadership. Letts can just hop in his TARDIS and go back to Victorian times where his sexism and attitude to fatherhood would fit right in, it doesn't make them right however.

And another thing...PCC says the Chancellor lied for #No2AV

The Press Complaint committee has upheld two complaints from Electoral Reform Services Ltd that the Chancellor George Osborne, as reported in the Daily Fail and the paper that shall not be named, LIED (OK the language used is that he was wrong) about the use of machines and that Electoral Reform Services Ltd would benefit from a Yes vote on 5th May.

Of course the whole issue of cost was a central tenet of the No2AV teams campaign. It was their opening batsmen, their leading goal scorer, their Oscar winning script, all rolled into one. Of course referendum communication we learnt during the campaign are not held by the Advertising Standards Agency code of conduct. But the PCC has found that the Chancellor has told untruths to fight this campaign, he may argue that he was merely echoing the statement from the No campaign. But if that was based on such a falsehood surely the Chancellor should have been more careful about what he said.

As I've pointed out before, such a breach by the Chancellor of the Treasury's own advice may actually be in breach of the ministerial code. While the PM take action against so senior a member who has broken the code. He restricted the role of the Business Secretary over the BSkyB takeover, about to take place tomorrow apparently, because he said publicly that he wasn't about to bow the knee to the mighty Murdoch. Yet his Chancellor has bowed the knee to the head of the Tax Payer's Alliance and their usual tactics to spread falsehood for political self preservation.

The only part of Westminster voting reform that was up to the public was the voting system, the Conservatives had already secured a reduction in the number of members which favoured them unfairly under the current system and required a change in voting system to provide a check and balance.

Well done George mission accomplished on that one, though it's hardly cricket. More Eton Wall Game. Oops did I spot that.

Conor sets the Irish Daily Fail Right on Civil Partnerships

Today Ireland finally allowed same-sex civil partnerships. One thing that the Daily Fail, even its Irish edition doesn't fail to do is live up to the fail element that us of a liberal nature constantly find it to do. This morning it was the case of Richard Waghorne who seems to neglect the need for it simply because he doesn't want to be civilly partnered or married as a gay man. I'm allergic to cats so don't want to have one of them if I can help it, hardly an argument to prevent others who love cats to keep one for live now is it?

Fortunately my friend Conor has put a rather excellent counterpoint blog post together looking from the point of view of the children of same sex couples, a group that is often overlooked. It is an excellent written post taking on some of the stupidity of the arguments that Waghorne tried to bring to the debate. I urge to go take a read of it yourself.

Of course I'm still hoping to maybe some day get married in a ceremony that allows my God to be part of proceedings rather than an afterthought or a prequel which is what I'd still have to do even if civil partnerships could be held in a religious building. I'd still need to have two distinct parts of a ceremony, not intertwined as my heterosexual friends are able to do. I'd still be treated as a second class person of faith, simply because I'd want to get married to someone of the same sex.

The PCC Chickens Out Over Jan Moir Article

So the Press Complaints Commission PCC have reached their verdict on Jan Moir's piece after Stephen Gately's death, the timing of which they said was "in questionable taste". They said:

"It would not be proportionate to rule against the columnist's right to offer freely expressed views about something that was the focus of public attention."

They had also passed it on to the Crown Prosecution Service who ruled that it was not unlawful:

"In December 2009, the Metropolitan Police passed the article and statements from two complainants to the Crown Prosecution Service to determine whether or not any crime had been committed through publication of that article.

"Having considered that material I have decided that there is insufficient evidence that any offence has been committed.

"In coming to this conclusion I have paid particular attention to Article 10 of the Human Rights Act which protects individuals' freedom of expression. It is an established legal principle that this freedom applies equally to information and ideas that are favourably received as to those which offend, shock and disturb.

"Though the complainants and many others found this article offensive, this does not make its publication unlawful."

So if I'm reading the CPS right the government legislation against incitement to racial or homophobic incitement is null and void next to Article 1o of the Human Rights Act. So too it would seem are the laws of liable, they were suppositions in Jan Moir's original article which she presented as fact.

On her saying that the singers death was not "natural" the PCC said that while this was controversial and speculative, "could not be established as accurate or otherwise". But surely the point was that on that particular Friday only days after the incident a newspaper columnist with no medical or forensic training or access to the corpse would be in a far less likely place to know what was accurate than family or medical professionals. She actually dismissed the comments of these to give her own slant on things, saying is was factual. The thing that could not have been established was what Jan Moir was saying on that point, so the PCC chickened out on the one point that was open to censure on accuracy grounds rather than opinion to incite hatred.

The PCC said that there was a fine line to be drawn "between critical innuendo which, though perhaps distasteful, was permissible in a free society – and discriminatory description of individuals, and the code was designed to constrain the latter rather than the former". The problem is as Sara Bedford pointed out yesterday this is not an isolated incident with the Daily Fail.

Almost every story that features a gay man leads to some sort of stereotyping and discriminatory description of lifestyle. There is always some slur in the way they put the story across. The latter is prevalent within that particular publication. The problem is that they spread it around and only individual stories can be raised at a time rather than the whole library of unfounded innuendo that they splurge out over and over and over again.

So while the PCC keep saying they cannot condemn one individuals freedom of speech the whole ethos of the paper is slanted in a particular way which does discriminate. Unfortunately the Code is also incapable of dealing with the largess of such views across an entire publication.

UPDATE: Reading the PPC's full findings I was particularly interested to see what it had to say about the cause of death SADS (Sudden Arrhythmia Death Syndrome) which Moir dismissed so fully as "not natural".

"It was clearly the columnist's opinion that "healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again". This was a general and rhetorical point, based on the view of the prevailing health of young men. It admittedly did not take into account the possibility of SADS or similar, but the Commission did not consider that it could be read to be an authoritative and exhaustive statement of medical fact. Equally, the Commission was fully aware of the widespread objection to the reference to Mr Gately's death as not being "natural". This was undoubtedly a highly provocative claim which was open to interpretation, and many people had considered this to be distasteful and inaccurate. It was a claim, nonetheless, that could not be established as accurate or otherwise. The article had set out the official cause of death so it was clear that this was a broad opinion rather than a factual statement."

So Andrew Cowles complaining thus about Moir saying the family were distorting facts:

"Although a post mortem had been conducted and the results published - confirming that Mr Gately had died from natural causes through an acute pulmonary oedema, believed to have been brought on by a heart attack - the thrust of the article was that this was questionable ("something is terribly wrong with the way this incident has been shaped and spun"; "the sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath")."

Appears to have no protection under the law. Journalists Columnists are at will under freedom of speech under the Human Rights act to deny facts, accuse the family who want these facts out to be liars, or indeed trying to obscure something. This is twisted and the PCC really has failed horrifically to defend factual representation today. The claim that Moir quoted the cause of death, she did but then only to rebuke it as nonsense. How that can pass accuracy under the PCC code dumbfounds me.

Read Also Andrew takes a look at one of the other clauses in depth. While a rather fluffy elephant renames the PCC the Press Cover-Up Cronies.

Gately 'Connected' Party Complaint Made About Jan Moir

Remember way back in October when Jan Moir wrote her poisonous piece on the eve of Stephen Gately's funeral in the Daily Fail.

Many of us ordinary people, 25,000 to be almost exact, took to our keyboards and wrote to the Press Complaints Commission and even though they did make a special case about it on their website. They wrote back to us saying there was nothing they could do under the code as none of us were 'directly' affected by the words on Jan Moir's hard drive.

Well today that has changed. Andrew Cowles was directly affected by the words that Ms Moir wrote has launched a formal complaint. Mr Cowles was Gately's civil partner and was present in the appartment when the man he loved died. Stephen Abell of the PPC.

"We're now investigating this complaint which we are taking forward formally and we'll consider it together with the 25,000 complaints as soon as possible.

"We'll be writing to the newspaper with this latest complaint from Andrew Cowles."

Obviously at the time of the article Cowles and the Gately family had other things they needed to do in grieving for their loved one. But now after a time of mourning Cowles is looking at the allegations that Moir made about a gay lifestyle in general but his and Stephen's in particular and seeking to set the record straight.

More people complained about that Jan Moir's than any single article in history and her unpology a week later did nothing to correct her mistake. Now the PCC are looking at how this has affected Andrew Cowles along with the other 25,000 of us who complained.

Even the PCC are Making Jan Moir a Special Case

Of course Jan Moir's article would have to be published on a day I was exceedingly busy then out having a good time. Indeed by the time I got home this evening the article appears to have been pulled from the Daily Fail website and the Press Complaints Commission (PPC) actually on their page about making a complaint saying, 'if you want to make a complaint about Jan Moir's article click here'. Apparently their website was down earlier so this may be to avoid too much overload on one server.

If you really want to read the full contents Cardiff Blogger has the full sorry piece with his commentary here.

I read it and logged a complaint with the PCC under three of their clauses. Accuracy, Intrusion into grief or shock and Discrimination. As the last of this has been widely covered elsewhere in the blogosphere I'm going to blog about the later.

Jan Moir writes:

"The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again."

Well I'm sorry they do. At only a few years older I thought I may have been facing something like that. My case was even more bizarre, I'd just left the gym, I may not have been in the peak of fitness but I still was pretty fit, but I experienced my first diagnosed cardiac episode, although I may have been having them for 20 years before. So yes I may very well have been one such person, so I question you accuracy.

When I was 16, one of our school friends did go to sleep and never wake up the day before our second Maths O'Level paper. So the whole school knew and the was there together to hear the news. The whole year was in shock at after the first hour when people could leave the hall, over half of my year did. Those of us who stayed couldn't settle for a good five minutes. At my 10 year reunion we marked the passing of 5 of our year, that is out of 200 or so pupils, as well as the one above 3 others were of natural causes. We had only just started to turn 28 never mind 33. Jan Moir must really have led a charmed life if she has never encountered someone young who has just passed away in their sleep.

As for her total disregard of the official cause of death, well as others have covered that heavily as well what more need I say. Her insinuations that there is something dark and sinister behind everything would mean many gay men should never again offer a bed or sofa for the night to a friend who has missed their last train, or can't be bothered waiting for the long queue at the taxi rank*. But then it appears that Ms Moir doesn't think that a member of Boyzone could be overflowing with the milk of human kindness, let alone the rest of the gay community.

The intrusion into grief and shock is maybe the hardest of the three clauses to apply. In the code it states:

5 Intrusion into grief or shock

i) In cases involving personal grief and shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

*ii) When reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used.

Now of course, Ms Moir seems to correlate the tragic death of Stephen Gately with the death of Kevin McGee the former partner of Matt Lucas. So maybe she does think it was a suicide despite all evidence to the contrary. So she does manage to avoid using excessive detail about the method used, firstly as there wasn't any, but more to the point she just makes it up.

The more solid ground of course it point about publication being handled sensitively. There is no way on this earth that this piece in the Daily Fail this morning cold possibly have been considered sensitive. To also publish on the eve of the funeral on the day that the body is returned to Ireland merely heightens the crassness of the piece as well as the timing.

Stuart Sharpe told me there was no point me blogging about this as I was heading out. Then when I got back that there was nothing new under the sun to add. I'm not sure if I have gotten a new take on this ridiculous woman's poisoned pen piece, but it certainly is mine and avoided too much of the obvious.

* You have been warned if you see the two of us out over the next few weekends lads. No can do, Ms Moir might get the wrong idea, the canasta game is just not going to happen.

Openly Homophobic Paper Fails Again

Shame on you Ephraim Hardcastle in the Daily Fail for this:

"Overtly gay Tory blogger Iain Dale has reached the final stage of parliamentary selection for Bracknell, telling PinkNews: 'I hope any PinkNews readers who live in Bracknell will come to the open primary on October 17 to select their new candidate.

"You don't even have to be a Conservative to attend.'

"Isn't it charming how homosexuals rally like-minded chaps to their cause?"

For starters what has the man's sexuality got to do with anything, especially his ability to apply for or do a job. In fact isn't discrimination on the grounds of human sexuality against the law of the land Daily Fail?

Secondly Pink News tends to interview high profile gay men and women with a story to tell. It gives their readers hope against the over accusing homophobic or just not recognised reality of the MSM like the Fail itself. So obviously when a high profile political event does feature a gay candidate he'll be asked for comment. Iain's full quote to the paper is:

"I'm delighted to be on the Bracknell shortlist. It's the only seat I have applied for and I hope any PinkNews.co.uk readers who live in Bracknell will come to the open primary on October 17th to select their new candidate. You don't even have to be a Conservative to attend."

We all know that Iain is a great fan of open primaries, even if I'm not so sure, he sees it as a way of letting the people have their say. He hasn't said vote for me, but has said turn up if you live in the seat and select your candidate. Hardly a case of rally like minded people to his cause, but asking people who are sometime ostracised by society and indeed have been by the Tory party to get involved in the electoral process.

Update: Iain himself has written about the story, starting with the line 'Just by writing this blogpost, I will probably damage my chances in Bracknell'. It is reported in Pink News and by others including Mark and Andrew. Even Lib Dem Voice got in on the act with a special story of the day round up called Homophobia is Gay when it's against Tories, too. Mark Pack also noticed the mystery of the missing comments on the piece on the papers site.

At the end of the day though Iain has recieved an apology from Peter MacKay of the Daily Mail, which Iain has accepted. But he also writes:

"I think there are two lessons here. Don't take this sort of thing lying down. Fight back and you can get a result. It wouldn't have been possible without the internet, though, would it?

"It is all very well for me to do this. I am in a position to. But what about if it had happened to someone else without the facilities to do what I did today? Think on that."

Update 2 00:40 Looks like we may have been taken for a ride. Iain Dale has just tweeted:

"Yup, judging from the content of the Ephraim Hardcastle today, the apology wasn't in fact from the real Peter McKay at all. PCC here I come."

Livingston FC: What the Papers are Saying

I was flicking through the sport's pages this morning to see what the papers say about the imminent liquidation of Livingston.

The Grauniad fail when they say:

'Presumably the number of people reading this column who care, or even know about, the probable demise of Livingston FC can be counted on the fingers of an oven glove.'

Personally I find such presumptions about Scots first and Livingston fans secondly a disgrace. An oven glove has one finger. Other than myself I can think of several other readers of that paper in the support. I may have to confine them to the level of the unmentionable red top.

The Daily Telegraph mention that this is the fourth Scottish Team to go out of business in 7 years, Livingston, Gretna, Clydebank and Airdrieonians. Though on a minor technicality Clydebank's position basically survived when the outfit moved to Airdrie.

The Scotsman has been matter of factly updating its story since early yesterday morning and says the fate lies in the SFL meeting this morning. But as the Daily Mail reports that would require a change in the SFLs rules over insolvency. Basically as Massone's company still technically owns the club as registered with the SFL which he is not prepared to give up voluntarily they may severe those links and offer Neil Rankine and Gordon McDougall, waiting in the wings with a joint rescue bid, the rights to the identity.

The small hope is rule 76 which says:

"Any club who goes in for an insolvency procedure are in breach of SFL rules. The committee then have full power to deal with it as it thinks fit."

The Herald reports that though the deadline for Massone to hand over his shares to McGruther acting for the Administrators to hand over his shares yesterday, is willing to wait until he walks into the meeting at Hampden this afternoon at 2pm for a change of heart. But he will need the shares in his hand and the interested parties by his side or else all looks doomed.

The unmentionable paper do publish a plea from Chris Innes* the team captain to the SFL to give a stay of execution. He of course went through this all last summer with Gretna.

All in all not a pleasant mornings reading, with only the thinnest glimmer of hope. Angelo you have seen only a small part of how upset the community is as many of us had to be at work yesterday. You appear to be the only person left who thinks you are able to save this club by holding unto your shares. Wake up! Smell the espresso and do the right thing.

*Hey after yesterday's horrible headline they gave a decent story today. But I still remember Hillsborough.