Public health warning: Never mix equal marriage, Stephen Nolan show and breakfast

Earlier today Rev. David McIlveen came on The Stephen Nolan Show on Radio Ulster. The reason for his appearance was that the Equality Commission had said that they had come to the opinion that, with movement on the issue in the rest of the UK, Same-Sex Marriage should be extended to Northern Ireland.

But it was some of this comments that caused concern, especially as these were echoed by a number of callers.

Firstly he said that homosexuality should never have been legalised in Northern Ireland in 1983. When challenged by Pink News editor Benjamin Cohen about what would be the penalty Rev McIlveen said that was his place to come up with the penalty. Of course he was stating that the bible should be the basis for the law. The penalty in that is that if men sleep with men they should be stoned. But the Reverend was very careful to say that he did not condone violence against people.

He said he was unaware of what rules applied before 1983. When challenged with the past punishments he said that those were a "totally nonsense response". Well maybe he should read a little more about this. The Labouchere amendment to the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act (which itself lowered the punishment from death to life imprisonment) said the following:

"Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures, or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with an other male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable at the discretion of the Court to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour."

This was the law under which Oscar Wilde was sentenced and was still in force in Northern Ireland in 1983. It did not merely apply to prostitution but where two consenting men were doing anything even in the privacy of their own homes. It was because of this law being in place in the 1970s that Jeffrey Dudgeon was questioned by the RUC which lead to him taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

However, Rev McIlveen went on to say that he would continue to advocate the Save Ulster from Sodomy campaign was an "right and honourable campaign". Before quoting that the court case ruling for his church while allowing the gay community to have their point of view also allowed his church to have theirs. So how is not allowing gay people to be gay people fulfilling that? Which is what the Save Ulster from Sodomy campaign was about.

On the subject of the law, Benjamin Cohen also challenged him when he had quoted that Jesus had come to fulfill the law, that he did not eat pork, or shellfish, and was circumcised as laid out in the Torah. How much of that law did Rev. McIlveen fulfill? You may guess this but Rev McIlveen avoided answering that.

Scarily one of the callers who was obviously listening to the show not far from me in Bangor, came on and said that being gay was a treatable mental illness! Yes, in 21st Century fairly liberal Bangor some people/person think(s) I am mentally ill because I am gay.

I should remember not to listen to Stephen Nolan while eating my breakfast, there are still bits under some of the keys which makes typing somewhat slower than normal.

He is an ex-politician

In light of the latest news about the MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath the Monty Python crew would probably say the following:

SCENE: The constituency offices of the MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.

Constituent: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(The case worker does not respond.)
Constituent: 'Ello, Miss?
Case Worker: What do you mean "miss"?
Constituent: (pause)I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Case worker: We're closin' for lunch.
Constituent: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this member of parliament what I voted for not three years ago from this very constituency.
Case worker: Oh yes, the, uh, the ex Prime Minister...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Constituent: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E appears to be dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Case worker: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Constituent: Look, matey, I know a dead politician when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Case worker: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable MP, the ex-Prime Minister, idn'it, ay? Beautiful taxpayer fundes offices!
Constituent: The office don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
Case worker: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
Constituent: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up! (shouting at MP's office)  'Ello, Mister Brown! I've got a lovely fresh bit of case work for you if you show...
(case worker knocks the door with a broom)
Case worker: There, he moved!
Constituent: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the door!
Case worker: I never!!
Constituent: Yes, you did!
Caseworker: I never, never did anything...
Constituent: (yelling and hitting the door repeatedly) 'ELLO GORDY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!
(Opens the door and sees a model of Gordon Brown sitting in the chair. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)
Constituent: Now that's what I call a dead politician.
Case worker: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Constituent: STUNNED?!?
Case worker: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Ex-Prime Ministers stun easily, major.
Constituent: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That politician is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not three years ago, you assured me that its total lack of action was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged period of activity in House of Commons.
Case Worker: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for Number 10.
Constituent: PININ' for NUMBER TEN?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fail to respond to any of my letters as soon as he was no longer PM?
Case worker: The ex-Primee Minster prefers keepin' on it's post bag small! Remarkable MP, id'nit, squire? Lovely office!
Constituent: Look, I took the liberty of examining that politician when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had not been voted out for inactivity was because this government has failed to delivery a recall facility, which with his amount of inactivity and failure to respond would have been quite easily arranged.
(pause)
Case worker: Well, o'course a recall procedure is a bad idea! If we'd had a recall procedure, it would have cost all his staff their jobs, put us out on the street, there is a recession on after all, and BOOM! Feeweeweewee!
Constituent: "BOOM"?!? Mate, this politician didn't "boom" even when he was chancellor. Ending boom and bust he said, so if things went bust whose fault was it. He wouldn't respond even if he were to get a shot of  four million votes through him! 'E's bleedin' demised!
Case worker: No no! 'E's pining!
Constituent: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This politician is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and not yet gone to the other place! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace, but not on the red benches! If you hadn't nailed his name outside this office 'e'd be pushing up the old Lord and Ladies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' hereditaries!! THIS IS AN EX-POLITICIAN!!
(pause)
Case worker: Well, I'd better replace it, then. (he takes a quick peek behind the counter) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of politicians.
Constituent: I see. I see, I get the picture.
Case worker: (pause) I got a slug.
(pause)
Constituent: Pray, does it talk? Make speeches in the House? Vote in divisions*? Respond to constituent's concerns? Actually work for its constituents?
Case worker: Nnnnot really.
Constituent: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?
Case worker: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at his feet)
Constituent: Well.
(pause)
Case worker: (quietly) D'you.... d'you want to come help elect the next Labour MP?
Constituent: Why? Who is it?
Case worker: Gordon Brown**?
Constituent: Is he LABOUR?
Case worker: Yes!
Constituent: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure.

 * Since the 2010 General Election Gordon Brown has only voted in 13.3% of divisions, only the Sinn Féin MPs have voted in less.
** he continues to draw his MPs salary and expenses and donates income from his engagements as an ex-PM to charities but fails to carry out the amount of work expected of someone drawing an MPs salary. Reports from his local party are that he intends to stand again in 2015.

Ineos go all in, Unite fold

The best analogy of the deal that was reached over the Grangemouth plants future this morning comes from the world of poker.

Ineos possibly sick of the infighting and continuous threat of strikes from the Unite Union yesterday announced they were shutting down the petrochemical part of the plant and considering the future of refinery. It was the equivalent of putting all your chips unto the table and being prepared to lose everything.

Unite had rejected the 'last chance survival' plan offered by Ineos, but this morning with 800 jobs apparently already gone and 570 others threatened they capitulated. Accepted all the conditions laid down by that plan as they say "warts and all". Equivalent to throwing all your cards away in poker.

This afternoon we also saw the new Secretary of State for Scotland Alistair Carmichael and Scottish Finance Minister John Swinney together in Grangemouth to talk with Ineos this afternoon.

Addressing the press after that meeting Mr Carmichael said:

"We are in a much better place today in relation to the future of the plant than we were yesterday.

"There remains, of course, a great deal to be done."

Mr Swinney added:

"This plant has got a great future, everybody accepts that Grangemouth has got a great future.

"What we need to do is resolve these outstanding issues, get the investment plan implemented and take forward and improve the prospects for the people that that work in this plant."

The past 24 hours has certainly proved to be a long time in the  life of 1,370 highly skilled jobs in Grangemouth and I hope that in the future both sides will sit down and discuss differences in a constructive and respectful manner long, coming to a conclusion long before it escalates to such potentially damaging circumstances.

The wider impact of the loss of Grangemouth peterochemical jobs

Around 800 people across West Lothian and Falkirk are to lose their jobs with the announcement today that Ineos are to shut down the Grangemouth petrochemical plant with immediate effect. The fate of the remaining 570 jobs linked to the refinery on the same site are yet to be determined.

It is one of the biggest loss of jobs in the area following on the the 3,100 lost with the shutting of the Motorola plant at Bathgate in 2001, the same number lost their jobs at NEC, Livingston the same year. More recently 500 lost their jobs with the shutting down of the Bausch and Lomb plant at Livingston.

But the danger of losing jobs in the petrochemical plant is nothing new. Indeed back in May 1992 my some time sparring partner the MP for Linlithgow and East Falkirk mentioned then recent job losses at the plant in his maiden speech:

"The town of Grangemouth is at the centre of Falkirk, East and has been noted for some time as a petrochemical town, boasting substantial production facilities for BP Oil, BP Chemicals, ICI, General-Electric Plastics, and Rhom and Haas (Scotland). My constituents are pleased at the commitment to investment by those companies, notably the £600 million investment by BP Chemicals in an ethylene cracker plant, the process technology labs of ICI and the Rhom and Haas plant upgrade. However, all is not what it once was. Harry Ewing noted the vast expansion of Grangemouth in 1971, but in 1971, when speaking about new employment, he said that the position was rapidly changing. I say without criticism of local management in Grangemouth that, in 1991–92, more than 1,000 job losses were announced in the town. Some 300 jobs have gone at the BP refinery, 250 have gone at ICI and 200 more redundancies are being sought. In addition, there were major job losses in the timber yards, which were made much of in 1971 by my predecessor."

It is sad day for the 800 who have lost their jobs today. However, both sides have been acting like stubborn mules in recent days, if not years. The owners seem to be doing all they can to get what they view as a white elephant off their books, while at the same time the workers are not prepared to take any chance in pay and conditions, fearing their own job without considering that all the jobs in the sector could be gone.

When Ineos came with what they called a survival plan, you would have thought that alarm bells would have been ringing with the workers. The fact that the plant has survived so long without a major change in conditions when others the area have had to accept such adjustments, knowing that if they didn't their job could disappear.

But the Grangemouth plants is almost a fifedom of Unite. The same union that has been at the centre of the Fallkirk Labour Party's election shenanigans. The Union appears to have been promising the workers take a stand and we'll see that everything will be alright, only to have found that Ineos were also not going to budge. it appears that the 570 jobs in the refinery are now also in danger. But with that there is also other jobs in the oil industry and possibly the ability of Scotland to actually process the oil that lies off its shore.

The last element is going to be of extremely great concern to Alex Salmond because part of the way he was going to fund an independent Scotland was through the production and processing off 'Scottish' oil within Scotland. If the Grangemouth plant were to totally close and be mothballed or decommissioned it could take years if at all to be able to get the processing of oil within Scotland up to the speed that would make it capable of supporting Scotland's economy to the extent that Salmond wants it to. If the oil is going to have to be processes and refined elsewhere that would be extra costs and less value added within Scotland causing a rather big hole in his economic plan.

Hitchhikers Tour hits financial barrier and quotes God

The tour of the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy Radio Show, which I had previously tweeted had  been pulled from coming to Belfast, hit the final buffers today. Last night it showed before a full house, somewhat ironically in Kingston, the town that the first UK researcher on H2G2.com to reach 100 solo entries [i.e. me] went to university.

Part of the message from the producers echoes God's last message to mankind

***SPOILER ALERT***

"We're sorry for the inconvenience."

The full message was:

"The Radio Theatre Company deeply regret to announce the immediate cancellation of The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy Radio Show 2013 Tour. Tonight's performance at The Hawth, Crawley and tomorrow's at the Watford Colosseum will not take place, nor will any of the remaining scheduled shows in October and November.  Ticket holders are being contacted and should contact venues for refunds.

"Although a well-loved show, Hitchhiker's Live has been subject to the same extreme economic pressures as many productions touring the UK this autumn. Ticket sales across the board have been lower than average and we have not escaped this trend. A difficult financial environment for such a large and technical show means that covering operating costs has become impossible. As a result in the last 24 hours we have had no option but make the extremely hard and painful decision to stop the tour.

"We sincerely apologise for any inconvenience this may cause and share the extreme disappointment and frustration felt by many who were looking forward to seeing the show. we sincerely hope that it can be brought back in the future."

While it makes the rumours that us in Belfast heard that the reason for not coming to Belfast was financial turn out to be true, even though 10 days later than being upfront would have been appreciated.

There is on the Facebook page a personal message from the star Simon Jones (Arthur Dent) and director Dirk Maggs:

A PERSONAL NOTE FROM SIMON JONES AND DIRK MAGGS

"With infinite regret, despite happy audiences and 5 star reviews, we have been forced to curtail this tour ahead of schedule due to economic adversity. Having worked so hard to put on a show worthy of Douglas Adams and his devoted fans, we are utterly devastated.

"It has been a pleasure to be a part of a company, band and crew who have become a close knit family. We know people hoping to see the show will be as horribly disappointed as we are, and offer our heartfelt apologies for any inconvenience this has caused."

 As well as the numerous fans who like me had found out that the show they had wanted to see was not longer an option, now of course the actors are also out of work.

As Mitch Benn (Zaphod Beeblebrox) tweeted:

 

with a follow up...

 

I'm hoping Mitch's home is a little more secure than that. If not he might be stealing a spaceship near you and going on the run.

Of course the tour was to go on until the 50th Anniversary of Doctor Who and Doctor 6 was to have played the book next month. Here is what Colin Baker tweeted:

Sadly not even prayers to the Prophet Zarquon could turn this show into a success in the current situation. It is a rather sad day when top class touring productions cannot manage to reach the regions. We cannot allow top class theatre to end up only being shown in the West End, or maybe in the few major centres around the country.

Murdo Fraser's stigmatising questions of equal marriage

Murdo Fraser

Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser has laid down four questions that make for rather worrying reading when taken as a whole in relation to the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill that is progressing through Holyrood.

The first:

Question S4W-17753: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 15/10/2013

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will amend the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill to state that the current definition of marriage is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society.

Now I believe in freedom of speech. So I would want to protect people right to say that they disagree with the definition of marriage. Nobody should be forced to change the way they practice marriage, but the state can lead the way and at the same time enable faith groups to follow if they choose. In fact that was the reason that when it came to drafting Scottish Liberal Democrat policy on this that we let faith groups decide for themselves if they wanted to bring in same-sex marriage within their group.

However, when you lift the right of someone to say they disagree to the level of a belief there is a problem. Opposition to same-sex couples getting married in and of itself is not a complete belief structure. Indeed there are many people within most of the faith groups who disagree on this point to varying degrees. Some will oppose it absolutely, some oppose it within any faith group, some only within their faith group but are happy for others that want to to go ahead and others that are open to it however it happens. There is no straight forward belief in how people are opposed to same-sex couples getting married. It is as diverse a belief system as the faith groups themselves. 

Which leads to the second question:

Question S4W-17754: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 15/10/2013

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will seek to amend the Equality Act 2010 to (a) include in the protected characteristic of religion or belief, support for the current definition of marriage and (b) ensure that people opposed to same-sex marriage should not experience any detriment because of their views.

Here as I said above even those within faith groups have differing views on the current definition of marriage. What the current Bill is seeking to do is to respect whatever decision each faith group comes to via its own governance and procedures. In Scotland we have less state control of religion than in England and Wales. 

This amendment would seek to ensure that people opposed to same-sex marriage should not experience any detriment because of their views. But what if them avoiding detriment comes to their views comes at the detriment of those in a same-sex marriage. You cannot impose a cover all as this amendment does. Imagine an extreme example:

"I'm sorry my Lord, but I disagree with same-sex marriage and when I found out the couple next door were 'gay married' I collapsed our connecting wall unto them stoning them to death as stated in Leviticus 20:13 I should do with man who lies with another man. But under the amendment to the Equality Act 2010 I should not suffer any detriment for acting upon my views."

Extreme maybe, but if that amendment were to be added to the equality act as it is written is there really any response that a court could make to such a defence?

Then unto question three:

Question S4W-17756: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 15/10/2013

To ask the Scottish Government, if same-sex marriage was introduced, what its position is on whether it would be appropriate for public sector employers to take into account the views on this of (a) applicants for posts and (b) staff when considering their suitability for employment.

Now public sector employees cover a wide gamut of positions.

First there is the obvious front line position of registrars who would have to carry out same-sex marriages. Mind you these people already carry out marriages between people of faith and those without (which their beliefs could oppose), same sex couples in civil partnerships, and even divorcees. We do not see Murdo Fraser or anyone else for that matter wanting these believes about the current definition of marriage being similarly protested.

Also what about in the workplace. Will people engaged in same-sex marriages be allowed of have pictures of their spouse and family around their work station, or would the objector who has their opposite-sex spouse and family on his object and force that to be taken down?

Then there are other public servants, the police who have to deal with homophobic abuse against a same sex couple who are married. Medical staff who would have to admit the spouse of a same-sex marriage into a patients room when only family are allowed. The benefits officer adjudicating on the benefits that a couple deserve as a respect of their marriage. Etc, etc. 

In other words as far as public servants go they have to serve the public. Their views cannot get in the way of them carrying out their duties. I know that this question was aimed solely at the task of registrars, but by being so openly worded to avoid looking targeted and openly homophobic in one area of public service, there is no way that such an open ended statement can be allowed anywhere near this Bill or its consequences.

Which leads to the final question:

Question S4W-17757: Murdo Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 15/10/2013

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will amend the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 to specify that organisations opposed to same-sex marriage will not fail to meet the charity test because of this view.

Now I thought the aim of all the charities in Scotland was to help those in need. Whether that is adults or children. Would a charity aimed at helping children not help a child if their parents were or had been in a same-sex marriage. Would a charity fail to help someone because there were in a same-sex marriage, if they were hungry, thirsty, needed clothes, were sick or  in prison. Because if they failed on any of these definitions of charity they fail not just the charity test laid down in law but that laid down by Jesus in Matthew 25:31-46. 

So Murdo is looking to protect faith charities from one part of the bible by allowing them to break another part of it. If they want to provide a charity they should follow the examples of the one they base their faith on surely. He didn't seem to differentiate between those worthy of his charity and those who didn't. In fact he broke the norms of his time reaching out to those groups that those of his faith felt were unclean, rather than banishing them from his help.

All of these 'amendments' from Murdo Fraser are probably meant to address very specific areas but in order to appear to not be stigmatising people who will become married to a same-sex partner  he has opened his parameters wide. The result is that in trying not to focus on particularly homophobic language and instances he has opened the gap far too wide. 

It shows total disregard to his first question looking for respect in a democratic society. If people who are opposed to same-sex marriage want to be respected in a democratic society they should also respect those who want to be married to a same-sex partner. That respect will allow them to disagree without discriminating.

Those of us who support equal marriage also support freedom of expression. Our expression doesn't impinge on those who object, but their trying to squeeze how far our equality goes does make some of our number more anti allowing them to keep their freedoms.

Alex Salmond and the Royal Mail

So in his speech today Alex Salmond said that after independence he would return the Royal Mail to public ownership. Now I make no apology here for being a philately geek as this is where the issues arise from what Alex has said in such a blasé manner.

First up there is the name, he would have no powers over the Royal Mail. The only postal service in the World that does not need to use the nation's name in its title is that of the United Kingdom as in 1840 they were the first to offer a universal set price postal service. Every other nation from the USA to South Sudan has to have the name of the country in its postal service name and on its stamps.

I have no qualms about Alex salmond saying he would restore a public postal service, but I do when he says that it would be the Royal Mail.

However, on the subject of a public postal service, does that mean that the franchised counters out to grocery stores or other shops in our rural communities would also be brought back into public ownership and therefore into a custom state run enterprise. You see if Alex truly means that all units of the Scottish Mail Service are to be public we cannot have rural post services run in the local shop. Nor can we have grocers delivery groceries and mail as an all in one service. You see the post service has not been entirely publicly owned for some time. Sometimes the franchised counters do not live up to expectations or occasionally the store into which they have been franchised run into difficulty. Then the Royal Mail has had to find some alternative arrangement, and this has not always been immediate, nor it is always fit for the purpose that those locals would like to expect, initially.

Then we have the matter that Alex Salmond's post service would have to operate outside of the UK. People will know that the cost of posting to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man is the same as to the UK. But these are crown dependencies. What Alex Salmond is wanting is a fully independent Scotland within the framework of  the UK.

While in the UK to post a letter up to 100g currently costs 60p first class and 50p second class. If I wanted to post something from Londonderry to Letterkenny, it would cost 88p minimum (up to 10g) but rise to £2.38 for between 90 and 100g. This is because Ireland counts as being in the EU. I know of people close to the border who have family in Northern Ireland who will order to the Northern Irish address as it is cheaper by quite some way.

Independence and the mail will have an affect on Scottish jobs.

Amazons largest fulfillment centre is in Dunfermline. But with increased mail costs to the rest of the UK will it be economically viable to keep both the one there and the one at Gourock? Probably not. So they will probably close the Gourock centre and scale down the one at Dunfermline. The same applies to other distribution networks that have based themselves in Scotland because of the space. With increased postage as shown above being quite steep for even small items the cost of distribution by mail order would mean a scaling back of these type of industries. That would mean a lot of lost jobs in the central belt where the M8, M9 and M80 triangle have prided themselves in becoming a distribution hub.

Independence would affect these jobs, these industries. Therefore is not enough for Alex Salmond to merely say that under independence the Royal Mail will be returned to public hands. Under independence mail will cost a lot more to send outwith Scotland and that has an impact on the cost of running companies and on people's jobs.

The Royal Mail is an essential service to people all across the UK. But under independence 5.25 million of those citizens will find it has an impact on them, the work they do, keeping in touch with family and friends and maybe even their job. People in the borders will be able to get around this, they'll use the address of their family or friends in Carlisle or Berwick to order stuff from English based firms. You don't believe this. This already happens with people from the Republic ordering stuff from UK companies to their f&f in Derry/Londonderry, Newry or Enniskillen.

There are more questions that Alex and his SNP team have to answer about postal services under an independent Scotland, because this is another area where we are Better Together.