Thank you Mr Dodds for the encouragement

Yesterday in the House of Commons debate on the Queen's Speech Nigel Dodds said:

"He is certainly proof that if we work at and fight for an issue that we believe in, we will get there in the end, especially if the cause is right."

Now the comment was directed at Sir William Cash and in relation to the EU referendum that has been promised in Queen's speech, but as an LGBT campaigner in Northern Ireland I take this as encouragement. Because also later when responding to his colleague Sammy Wilson he said:

"My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which is one of those that arise out of the Belfast agreement. As he knows, equality provisions under section 75..."

Although he did continue "work against giving our armed forces veterans the same status as those in the rest of the United Kingdom." the fact is that a DUP MP has acknowledged the Northern Ireland Act/Belfast Agreement and knows about section 75 is something.

But back to that first comment in relation to William Cash. The wave of rightness is on the side of those supporting Equal Marriage. Yesterday Greenland became the latest state to legislate for it in a unanimous vote. Since the referendum result in Ireland was announced Austrialian Prime Minister Tonny Abbott said he wouldn't stand in the way of a conscience vote. Also Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi is about to fast-track the civil union legislation that has been stalled for a number of months.

Only Germany of the list of Western countries that Peter Lynas listed on Nolan as not having marriage equality the other day has not announced any plans to move forward on this issue since the referendum. Although there have been calls from the opposition Green/Alliance 90 leader Katrin Göring-Eckardt for Germany to move on this, Angela Merkel is remaining adamant it is not the goal of her CDU/CSU party (the only one in Germany opposed) in this Government.

Therefore the LGBT community should take encouragement that even Nigel Dodds that "if we work at and fight for an issue that we believe in, we will get there in the end".

Dear Vlad, there are Gay criminals too

Now while most of the western world are aware of the corruption and sexual offenses that Silvio Berlusconi faces it seems bizarre that Russian President Vladimir Putin should jump to such an unusual defense of his friend:

"Berlusconi is on trial because he lives with women. If he was homosexual no one would have lifted a finger."

Now I have a lesson for Mr Putin, not every gay man, or lesbian woman or anyone who is bisexual or transgender is a law abiding citizen. Believe it or not these do face persecution based on the facts of the case just as any heterosexual would do. When the laws are equal and the charges have nothing to do about the person's sexuality the LGBT community expect justice to be carried out. It may be a case of domestic violence against a same-sex partner, or a fellow clubber. Or it may be corruption charges or grooming minors into sexual activity.

Not everyone is perfect, yet the law of the land should be equal to everyone no matter what their sexuality. However, what many nations believe is that when a nation, such as Russia, makes a law that criminalises someone merely on the grounds of their sexuality or by "promoting" it that is not fair, and people will raise fingers to prevent that happening.

Ciao Momma I'm Moving Out

What were you doing at 18?

Me, I was starting the final year of my A'levels having a September birthday meant I was only just starting the first term when I turned 18. At nineteen I did move out to go to University but at 26 I found myself back home after finding a new job hard to get in London. Of course I was out the door again at 31 and have been over in Scotland ever since.

So therefore the Italian minister who wants all of Italy's "bamboccioni" momma's boys and girls to leave home at eighteen surely hasn't looked at all the consequences. What are the reasons that 38% of Italy's 18-34 year olds still live at home? Before we mock Britain we are at 34%.

The major concern is financial. Obviously it is cheaper to have all the household bills paid for by your mum or dad. Or course when I spent that time at home I as building a little nest egg, but was looking for places to move out to, never expected I would end up in Scotland where after a year of spending that nest egg on travelling to Scotland or London it was sadly diminished.

But can an eighteen year old afford to move out of home on their own? Not all of them can, so how is the Minister going to insure that instead of 18 years old cosying up to their mothers they are not cosying up to the next homeless person in their cardboard box.

Of course there does come a time when it is ridiculous what some mothers will do for their grown up sons or daughters at home, and expect nothing in return. When I moved back in with my parents I paid a nominal rent, I cooked, did my own ironing, cleaned my own room and helped around the place. I also topped up the car with petrol after use. All of my entertainment came out of my own pocket.

The minister is taking exception to some of those who stay a home not because they need too, but because their momma makes it too nice for them to actually want to move out. Having that first experience of not letting the turkey thaw out long enough, finding yourself in the middle of nowhere after missing the last connection or that washing machine breaking down with your important load in it (all Uni experiences of mine) is part of growing up. They can only be experienced when you move out, find your own place (sharing with strange people even) but they help you learn to stand on your own feet, muddle through and make decisions.

By all means make it easier for young people to be able to afford to move out, but it isn't something your can arbitrarily set a age determining factor on, we're all different.

Just What Diplomatic Message to Iran?

The number two from the British Tehran embassy yesterday attended the endorsement ceremony of President Ahmadinejad by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This was the disputed election that Iran has also heavily accused Britain of leading the populist opposition against in June.



The FCO seem to think that sending the number two, Patrick Davies the deputy head of mission instead of the Ambassador Simon Glass was enough to show the regime that this was not business as usual, claiming that we need to talk to the regime about its nuclear programme, human rights and other issues. But others think it was too much, Menzies Campbell said:

"The Government has been vociferous on behalf of human rights and individual freedoms in Iran but at a time when a show trial is taking place it surely would have been prudent to preserve coolness and meet only the most perfunctory diplomatic niceties."

And shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said:

"Under all the circumstances, representation at this event should have been kept at the minimum level possible. Other countries seem to have done that more effectively than the Foreign Office."

Although around the EU however the message was similarly confused. Sweden who currently hold the Presidency of the EU sent their Ambassador, France and Italy, one of Iran's biggest trading partners, like Britain sent their number two, whereas Germany sent one of their lowest ranking diplomats.



However, it was boycotted by Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, the defeated candidates, and by the former presidents Mohammed Khatami and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Also noticeable in their absence was any member of family of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini the leader of the 1979 revolution.



So it is possible to send a message more strongly, while keeping up the pretense of diplomacy? The FCO say they have yet to decide who to send the the swearing in ceremony on Wednesday, but seeing as Iran singled out eight local Embassy staff at the British mission during the protests against the election, which we protested, surely we have some case for not sending high ranking officials.



The current show trial that is going on at the same time as the swearing in process is continuing may not act as a suppressor of protest by as a stimulus for a continuance. The people are speaking and unlike the Star Trek episode where Gul Dukat says that the Cardassian people like to watch pre-determined 'justice' being enacted over and over again, the Iranian people may be smart enough to see that the trials going on are a mask to cover up the real issue of just what did go on between the people voting and the count being declared. Many are saying that is where the real crime took place, the crime is theft, distortion and fraud, not to mention of an undisclosed number who happened to disagree, and a few who were innocent.

Carry On Camping with Berlusconi

The Italian President has said of the victims of the Italian earthquake:

"They have everything they need, they have medical care, hot food...... Of course, their current lodgings are a bit temporary. but they should see it like a weekend of camping"

Well Silvio for starters when you go camping you generally have a home to head back to when you want to or get tired of it: with all the home conforts available.

Secondly if what the people of the towns and villages affected have been saying is right they are bing told they may be out for at least 3 months, hardly temporary if you want them to be camping though that all.

Best to think before engaging the tongue. Not very sensible way of putting it.

Holy See to Divorce

So the Vatican is to allow divorce, though not for those in marriage, it is merely going to divorce itself from automatically adopting all Italian law.

Vatican legal experts say that too many of the civil and criminal laws of the state that surrounds the Holy See conflict with church principles. Those from New Year's Day the Pope effectively threw out the Lateran treaties 80 years to the day they were entered into by his predecessor Pope Pius XI. The Vatican says that Italian laws are too many, too unstable and too often conflict with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. The Italian government is aware of the sheer volume issue and are looking to delete tens of thousands of obsolete laws from its civil code.

The Vatican is also concerned with some of the international agreements being entered into by the Italian government. One noticeable objection was their refusal to approve a United Nations declaration decriminalising homosexuality. While many gay groups said that the wording didn't go far enough the Holy See said that it went too far saying it placed different sexual orientations on the same level. The actual text merely went to the level of ensuring that homosexuals have the right to exist without imprisonment or execution for being who they are. The Catholic Church took the view that this was paving the way for more whilst still claiming to be accepting of all.

In the UK we're talking about disestablishing the Church of England, in the USA there is a fine delineation between church and state, the problem with the Vatican is that it is a sovereign state in its own right. But some those under its jurisdiction most notably in the banking field have in the past fallen foul of the law. It will be interesting to see just which laws the Vatican decides to veto.