Thursday, October 25, 2012

A paedophile ring at No10?

Tom Watson MP dropped something of a bombshell during yesterday's PMQs (iPlayer). It was the sort of question which, had it come from just about any other parliamentarian, and had Mr Watson not been so thoroughly vindicated in his tireless pursuit of the Murdoch press, would have ensured the politician a place in the David Icke school of nutty conspiracy theory. But paedophilia is now irresistably topical, and all suspected offenders must be hunted, exposed and shamed - even if they're disguised as lizards during normal daylight hours and lurk in the cupbaords of Downing Steet or Buckingham Palace.

While MPs were fretting about GDP, growth, fuel tariffs and the West Coast Mainline, Tom Watson asked a question about a paedophile network with links to Downing Street and a former prime minister. He referred to the existence of ‘clear intelligence’, and urged the Prime Minister to investigate.

Mr Watson told a stunned House of Commons: "The evidence used to convict paedophile Peter Righton, if it still exists, contains clear intelligence of a widespread paedophile ring. One of its members boasts of his links to a senior aide of a former prime minister who says he could smuggle indecent images of children from abroad. The leads were not followed up, but if the file still exists I want to ensure that the Metropolitan Police secure the evidence, re-examine it and investigate clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No10."

Mr Cameron referred to this being 'a very difficult and complex case' (well, what would you say?), and added that he was 'not entirely sure which former prime minister he is referring to'.

The vacuum of unknown unknowns will doubtless be filled (at least in the short-term) by the name of Ted Heath. But, as with Jimmy Savile, it's easy to disparage and defame the dead. If (as seems likely) Ted Heath was gay, it does not follow that he was a paedophile, which is an altogether different sexual predeliction. Former Conservative minister Edwina Currie has claimed that Sir Peter Morrison, PPS to Margaret Thatcher, had sex with 16-year-old boys (when the age of homosexual consent was 21). Again, conveniently, Sir Peter died in 1995.

But His Grace has a slight problem with Tom Watson's allegation.

In David Cameron's never-ending quest for 'gay equality’, and his deepest desire to 'decontaminate' the Tory brand and revive the Conservative Party as a ‘broad church’ of tolerant social liberalism, he has legislated to amend the statutory provisions on paedophilia and decriminalise it retrospectively, thereby rehabilitating those who were disobeying the law at the time. The state has permitted what it once prohibited, and the contemporary permission negates and nullifies historic prohibition.

Now that the age of homosexual consent has been equalised at 16, Mr Watson's allegation of a paedophile ring 'leading to No10' is rendered otiose. Certainly, if Sir Peter Morrison were having sex with 16-year-old boys when the age of homosexual consent was 21, according to David Cameron he is no longer a paedophile.

Indeed, if one were to take an EU-wide perspective on this (being a 'single legal area'), Tom Watson's allegations would not stand up to scrutiny in a political union where the age of consent begins at 12 (in the Vatican) or 13 (in Spain).

There is no agreed EU or European definition of what constitutes pederasty. And if the mystery prime minister to whom Tom Watson refers were having sex consensually with underage boys or girls in (say) the 1970s, the present Prime Minister has absolved his predecessor by redefining 'paedo' and 'consensual'. If past crimes against children would no longer show on a Criminal Records Bureau certificate, no crime has been committed.

Accordingly, if the age of consent were to be lowered at some point in the future (as it most assuredly will be), to 15 or 14 (if only to harmonise with 'ever closer union'), the legal precedent has been set for retrospective absolution. Today's paedophiles can look forward to the eradication of their criminal records, and an assurance that they will not be condemned to the life-long shame of having to declare that they were convicted of under-age sex.

So, Tom Watson is on a hiding to nothing. Parliament has consensualised that which the law said could not be consensual at the time of the act. We may no longer define sexual perversion or judge a person's private morality, for Parliament determines the public law. And Parliament, of which Mr Watson is a participating member, would doubtless deem this former prime minister a 'fit and proper' person to work with children.


Blogger SadButMadLad said...

Can we just try and keep the term paedophile to mean those adults who have sexual contact with prepubescent children. Not children who are young teens but still under the age of consent. An age which is more a legal concept than an actual definition of when children can understand what they are doing. Some children are pretty mature at age 15, others are still immature even at 21.

By using the term paedophile for all inappropriate sexual contact, we are in danger of going down the same route as the term racist. Racism is normally thought to just mean skin and race issues. Now it's been redefined to include countries, ethniticity, colour, genetic background, anything and everything so that the complainer has a tag to use to get the state and all it's might on their side.

25 October 2012 at 11:05  
Blogger BeeLZeeBub said...

How dare you claim that homosexuals rights are causes of paedophilia.

You disgust me.

25 October 2012 at 11:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

There are a number of terms for the psychiatric disorder of sexual interest in children.

Nepiophilia refers to a sexual desire for infants and toddlers (usually ages 0–3);

Pedophilia is used for sexual interest in prepubescent children aged 13 or younger; and

Hebephilia is for a primary sexual interest in 11-14 year old pubescents.

It seems there is no mental illness category covering the ages post-14 years other than criminal.

25 October 2012 at 11:13  
Blogger John Thomas said...

"Some children are pretty mature at age 15" (SAdBut ..., here) - Yes, and if the Government and the "Sex Education" industry have their way, children WILL be (forcibly) "mature" earlier and earlier ... How does SadBut ... think the situation (which he/she/it describes, has come about)

25 October 2012 at 11:33  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Interesting - if Stonewall gets its way, the age WILL be reduced to 14. If that happens, of course, then a great number of those Catholic priests that our right-on, secularist friends on this board, with their Whig view of history, have been using as a stick to beat us, will suddenly become rehabilitated - although I don't imagine they'll let a little thing like that stop them.

BTW, is The Vatican technically part of the EU?

25 October 2012 at 11:58  
Blogger Jon said...

Corrigan - I wasn't aware Stonewall was pushing for a reduction in the age of consent. Please provide evidence.

25 October 2012 at 12:02  
Blogger Neil Addison said...

I hate to be technical but the Vatican is NOT part of the EU and has never applied to be. It has an agreement with the EU to use the EURO in the Vatican Post Office, Museum etc but it is emphatically not part of the EU

25 October 2012 at 12:03  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


"While Vatican City isn’t technically part of the European Union, it is on the euro currency. Vatican City does mint its own euro coins, as well, and they’re quite collectible, so old Ernst hears. *Huge Chortles*
The Vatican is prone to always having a left foot in a camp without ever going fully in, does it not. Influence rather Imposition"


25 October 2012 at 12:07  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Neil Addison says on his blog

"I am a Church going Roman Catholic with a strong belief in 'free speech'. I hope that answers any legitimate personal questions visitors may have."
Then do have a word in the shell-like of your fellow amici here, young man. They appear to be off message, as every non RC expressing a differing opine, including His Grace, appears to be a 'Bigot'..Iz it coz wee iz Roamn Catlic!.


25 October 2012 at 12:16  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Yes, yes, yes, His Grace *knows* that the Vatican is not part of the EU. Good grief, he's written on the matter often enough. That's why he wrote in the next paragraph: 'There is no agreed EU *or European* definition of what constitutes pederasty.'

But doubtless His Grace ought to have made that point prior to mentioning the Vatican. And doubtless there are also those who will claim that the Vatican, being Catholic, isn't European either.

25 October 2012 at 12:20  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

His Grace

"And doubtless there are also those who will claim that the Vatican, being Catholic, isn't European either."

Global/Universal sounds so much nicer and less prone to be legally tied down to any specifics?


25 October 2012 at 12:23  
Blogger AJ said...

Is the Vatican age of consent really 12??

Wikipedia indicates it is 14 or 16 (same as Italy).

25 October 2012 at 12:30  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Cranmer, I believe I've warned you before about your sloppy use of language. This is what you wrote

Indeed, if one were to take an EU-wide perspective on this (being a 'single legal area'), Tom Watson's allegations would not stand up to scrutiny in a political union where the age of consent begins at 12 (in the Vatican) or 13 (in Spain).

It's very clear from this paragraph that you assumed the Vatican was part of the EU. A simple "sorry, I got that wrong" would suffice here.


Sorry, I got that wrong: Stonewall as an organization is not campaigning for a reduction of the age of consent to 14 (as far as I can tell, anyway); however, Peter Thatchell has come out in favour of lowering the age below 16, perhaps as low as 14.

As one commentator wryly enquired at the time, how many teenage boys go out on marches to be allowed to have sex with middle-aged men?

25 October 2012 at 12:32  
Blogger bluedog said...

One thing is certain, Your Grace, the person on the Clapham omnibus will lump the paedophilia matter in with Dave's proposal for SSM. The two issues will simply become a blurred concern in the minds of the electorate that some very strange people have a great deal of influence and want even more, and they've taken over the BBC too. Possibly gives a new meaning to the term 'costume drama', eh?

It follows that if Dave ever thought he was winning the argument for SSM he is wrong, he isn't and the whole thing is spinning out of control into an electoral disaster.

This is Tory Sleaze on steroids.

25 October 2012 at 13:05  
Blogger Preacher said...

According to the report, the person in question was a senior aide, not necessarily a Prime Minister. But if the Current Prime Minister is serious about his desire to eradicate the crime of paedophilia, he surely has a duty to clean his own house first.
There is nothing at present to indicate a Conservative P.M or his aide is the one responsible & it's obvious that it couldn't be a member of the Liberal party so what do the 'coalition' have to fear, unless of course like the BBC there is a cover up of a scandal planned. Indicating that more is known than is being revealed.

To the discerning eye it is obvious that the protection of the innocent is a price that certain people are prepared to pay for the positions of power that they covet. Even to the point of calling bad good & wrong right & legalising the same to cover their backs.

25 October 2012 at 13:08  
Blogger Tony B said...

Number 10 eh?

What next, the Royal Family? oops..

25 October 2012 at 13:40  
Blogger John Chater said...

Your Grace, please stop repeating the falsehood that the Vatican age of consent is 12. It is not. This is a pernicious rumour propagated I believe by that bastion of moral rectitude Stephen Fry on his odiously self-important programme QI.

Below is the actual situation (via Wiki):

The State of Vatican City came into existence in 1929, when Italy and the Vatican ratified the Lateran Treaty, which restored the temporal power of the pope in a highly limited form. Since that time, the Vatican has not made its own complete and separate criminal code. Instead, Article 3 of the "Law of the Source of Law" (the Second Law of the six fundamental laws adopted upon ratification of the Lateran Treaty), provided that in matters of criminal law the Vatican State should first use the provisions of Canon Law, and then particular laws made by the Pope, and thirdly—if there was no specific papal or canon law that applied, and as long as there was no conflict with divine moral law or canon law—the laws promulgated by the Kingdom of Italy and local municipal authorities.[75][76] As a result, as Italian criminal law changed or was amended over the years, Vatican City criminal law was also automatically changed or amended in the same way. The automatic change in Vatican laws to match the latest Italian laws ended effective 1 January 2009, when Vatican City imposed a new requirement that future changes in Italian law would need to be individually reviewed before adoption [77][78] However, this change did not affect the criminal laws already in effect. Thus, in so far as criminal prosecutions for sexual relations with minors go, the age of consent remains that of Italy (i.e., generally 14 or 16; see above.)

However, it should be noted the "Law of the Source of Laws" cited earlier placed divine precepts ("precetti di diretto divino") and the general principles of canon law ("principi generali di diritto canonico") ahead of civil law.[75] As The Vatican understands divine precept to forbid sexual relations outside of marriage, the real age of consent for sexual relations would thus be the minimum age at which a person may consent to be married. Canon law establishes that the minimum age at which one can contract a valid marriage is 16 for a male and 14 for a female,[79] and these ages may be considered the true "age of consent" according to Vatican law for licit sexual relations between two (married) persons.


25 October 2012 at 14:25  
Blogger Enemyof the State said...

There is a lot more evil in the upper echelons of the political parties than Tom Watson suspects. Here for instance are links to verifiable facts.

25 October 2012 at 15:24  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

We may no longer define sexual perversion or judge a person's private morality

When at least since we have been in enlightened enfranchised times did 'WE' whomever 'WE' are, ever have the right to sit in judgement on anyone other than through state sanctioned lawful examination?

25 October 2012 at 16:22  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

John Chater

I shall add that to my list of "dubious and politically-suspect pseudo-facts given out on QI".

25 October 2012 at 16:58  
Blogger non mouse said...

If only by density of population, Britain now stands more vile than at any point in its history. As laws retrogress to impose the will of foreign power, that vileness multiplies immeasurably. The place will soon provide no haven for anyone lower than the euro-oligarchy; it will be entirely unfit for habitation.

I'd say the only solution would be to stop providing them s** fodder: to stop having children. However, the aristos implicitly admit that Brave New World is their handbook; so once we may no longer choose our mates, we will regress to having no choice about reproduction. Willy-nilly, they'll just reap the appropriate cells and never mind who your parents' siblings are.


Btw, Your Grace-- in light of present-day law manufacture, things begin to look promising for Brady! If they redefine murder/killing soon, he may receive release, and a DC-style apology, before he dies.

25 October 2012 at 17:02  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Life in Britain Broken where a softly, softly approach to kiddie fiddlers is promoted by No10 but we pretend not to be able to make any connections, how much evidence has been getting locked away, for what reason was it sidelined, ignored or deliberately suppressed and who does it benefit

A simple enough line of inquiry

25 October 2012 at 17:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

SadButMadLad: "Can we just try and keep the term paedophile to mean those adults who have sexual contact with prepubescent children."

Agreed. It's 'tabloid' otherwise.

25 October 2012 at 17:50  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

And to think decent folk have to pay this shower of shit to tell them they have no criminal record, in order to get a job

Since when did the news you have no criminal record become something you payed for

Time to flush the lot of em!

25 October 2012 at 17:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Apart from what looks like an rather unwholesome undertone, I'm not sure I really get this article anyway. Or perhaps I misunderstand how the law works.

Firstly, is the age of consent really the demarcation between being a boy and a man? It's curious that someone aged 16 could be a boy as far as sex with an older male is concerned yet be a man as far as sex with a female of 16 or over is concerned.

Secondly, wouldn't Sir Peter Morrison have been charged with the offence of buggery for sex with a 16 year old male? I didn't think we actually have, or have ever had, an offence of paedophilia. Not least because paedophilia is not against the law even now. It's child abuse of some sort but only when acted upon.

Thirdly, if someone had sex with a 16 year old when the age of consent for homosexual acts was 21 then they broke the law. If they were caught and charged then they were guilty of breaking the law and so surely the criminal record stands now even though the law has subsequently changed?

If someone had sex with a 16 year old during that time and were not caught then the law no longer exists to charge them with that offence today if the evidence comes to light.

If a teacher had sex with his 17 year old male pupil back then then he couldn't be charged with buggery now because the offence no longer exists and couldn't be charged with a breach of trust under the current law because the offence didn't exist back then.

Or am I missing something crucial?

25 October 2012 at 18:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Cameron and his SSM. Not so much ‘detoxing’ the Conservative party. The toxin is of course decency in this case. More of an attempt to ‘detoxify’ homosexuality. The toxin here being shame, guilt, and culpability. That is what was asked of the man at his wine bar visits during opposition and that is what he is desperately trying to achieve.

The unanswered question is why. What could be driving the man that he would so deny traditional conservatives not only of the leafy shires, who will turn out Tory MPs from here to eternity, but also conservatives whose individual vote holds far more weight. This man, for example, whose city constituency sways to the party with the biggest majority. The city of Gloucester in the red / blue struggle is a must win seat for the party that is going to form the next government.

This man here, who will withhold his vote come what may if SSM goes through. The pledge has been made and it will happen, of that you can be sure.

One senses that the paedophile ring, if there is one in existence stretching back all those years, is top civil service based. MPs who are of course transient by nature most of the time, will be ‘invited’ to indulge, having first been vetted by the very clever men of Oxbridge. The permanency of the ring assured by the permanent nature of the civil service.

This country has had enough problems in the past with homosexual MI5 and MI6 men, and the damage they did. God alone knows what nefarious hold these queer types in the heart of our government are exercising. Surely they themselves not the driving force behind SSM ?

25 October 2012 at 18:16  
Blogger Span Ows said...

Agree with SadButMadLad (1st comment).

Re the c*^% Tom Watson, would he have spoken if a Labour MP or PM were involved? I doubt it which IMHO demeans any kudos he may have gained from his 'exposure'.

25 October 2012 at 18:44  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

As far as the law goes on the matter it seems a clear toss up between governments predatory rights and our duty to protect against their predilections

25 October 2012 at 19:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well, Well, Well

The Inspector has read the offerings brought before Cranmer and finds amongst it the same old lame cry. "Don’t associate paedophilia with homosexuality."

This inspired your man to put his hand in the bag. He pulled out a homosexual man. He put his hand in again, and this time pulled out another man. A paedophile. What does that tell you...

Incidentally, the OED is quite clear on paedophilia. A sexual interest in children. No mention of pubes, though in his hard copy something short and curly was discovered between the pages. It was blonde, not his colour at all !

Some strumpet has been reading his dictionary, and naked with it. Whatever next !

25 October 2012 at 19:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "This inspired your man to put his hand in the bag. He pulled out a homosexual man. He put his hand in again, and this time pulled out another man. A paedophile. What does that tell you..."

That you keep a homosexual man ready to hand in a bag? You're even more off piste than I thought.

25 October 2012 at 19:18  
Blogger Tony B said...

Inspector - "This country has had enough problems in the past with homosexual MI5 and MI6 men, and the damage they did. "

I'd have thought the problems they caused were due to their treachery, not their gayness..

25 October 2012 at 20:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tony B, cause and effect, old chap, cause and effect...

25 October 2012 at 20:14  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

BeeLZeeBub said...

"How dare you claim that homosexuals rights are causes of paedophilia."

The evidence is not that homosexuals cause paedophilia but there is this distubing fact that the percentage of child sexual abuse cases in which men molest boys is many times higher than the percentage of adult males who are homosexual, and most men who molest boys self-identify as homosexual or bisexual.

The gay community seems to be unwilling to accept or even acknowledge this evidence.

Why not? You tell me.


Some references

John Briere, et al., eds., The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1996), pp. 52, 53.

Dawn Fisher, “Adult Sex Offenders: Who are They? Why and How Do They Do It?” in Tony Morrison, et al., eds., Sexual Offending Against Children (London:
Routledge, 1994), p. 11. (pages 34 to 36)

25 October 2012 at 20:22  
Blogger len said...

If' the Law' stoops much lower to accomodate 'various sexual variations ' she will find herself flat on her back.

25 October 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good Lord Len, thought you were going to add ‘with her legs in the air’. Thank you for sparing this august site that unpleasantry...

25 October 2012 at 20:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil, have you actually read those books? In particular, John Briere's book that you cited?

25 October 2012 at 22:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"caught and charged" -> "caught and convicted" btw

25 October 2012 at 23:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJo. Pandora had her box. The Inspector has his bag. Society needs somewhere where they can hide away the ills of the world. Er, no offence, old fruit...

25 October 2012 at 23:38  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Perversion of reality.

That is what they all have in common. And they know each other. They see it in the eyes.
The light of life or the charade for spice. To fill an emptiness they'd steal off the innocent and wouldn't think twice.

25 October 2012 at 23:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Kinderling. That reminds the Inspector. There is a Dublin saying (...this would be the rare old times, mind...) about an unscrupulous man. “You can’t trust the fellow. Sure, he’d steal the steam off your piss when you weren’t looking”

Enjoy son, for when the Archbishop does his morning rounds, this post will surely vanish...

25 October 2012 at 23:51  
Blogger Kinderling said...

You mean he cannot discern from those who wear the world on their sleeve and those who don't? - when they know, simply because the difference is clear that night is day.

26 October 2012 at 00:26  
Blogger Kinderling said...

I am reminded of the 'inscrutable Chinese'.

These poor citizens, always watched by the traffic wardens (Civil Enforcement Officers)for any sign of individuality, or emotion, that could be construed as dissent. They had to mask the pain of the soul without revealing it upon their faces, in the same way a hunted animal does not reveal the pain of an injury lest they be noticed by the Jackals.

The light of a soul is food when it is extinguished.

26 October 2012 at 00:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Now you didn’t think a socialist utopia could be achieved by trusting people to be themselves ? But this is the problem, there are SOME people who are themselves that cannot be trusted at all. Yet they hold the reins of power, and are highly influential...

26 October 2012 at 01:01  
Blogger Kinderling said...

OiG: "...there are SOME people who are themselves that cannot be trusted at all..."

This is an odd statement.

I observe a rational mind to be normal and not prone to unatural desires, and will that will use another person for a sense of identity. Rather than charismatically draw people to themselves to hide their deeds, they will push people back onto themselves.

John Major was out of his gourd when he was tempted by the guilt-free offerings of Edwina. One had a conscience, the other had not. One was weak and the other was strong. Light and dark, two oposite kingdoms, two different countries sprout from such unwholsome soil. The coward and the bully. The jizzia tax-appeaser and the resentful perpetual victim.

When you see a person raised to a state to submission and loyal only to their violator, (the Stockholm Syndrome), you cannot say they are themselves. They are inverted.

Goodness only flows out of goodness.

What they give is the country away, for while Rome burns they will hear music. Decay and death makes them feel alive. No more than those who cut themselves, for their physical pain makes them forget their emotional pain. Did you not know the tattoist is a therapist?

26 October 2012 at 01:43  
Blogger Hereford Cathedral Choir said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 October 2012 at 01:50  
Blogger Kinderling said...


Is the UK a Christian country?

Well, two drunken women on public transport went to prison for speaking out-of-turn and a third is awaiting trial.

Was there public disorder? No. Was there a fight? No. Did the public vehicles have to stop? No. Everybody got off and went home. Then later the videos were uploaded onto youtube and the Police Service arrested, the Crown Proscution charged, and the Courts jailed.

Jesus said "turn the other cheek,"
the Law said 'prosecute those who offend you or those you think would have been offended if they had heard'

One country has citizens who spy on each other, the other those who meet and deal with life in the present.

One country is ruled by terror, the other where people escape to freedom of thought and speech.

The UK is run by those who were once sent off to the Foreign Office simply because they were not fit for government in character or deed. The Empire faded and they returned. All they still know, is how to divide and rule. We are just another foreign country of lesser mortals to them. Maybe this is karma for sending the paedophiles out to the world.

26 October 2012 at 02:16  
Blogger Katie said...

Thanks Mr Chater, I was wondering where the noble AB got his bit about the 'Vatican'. Since he (the ABC) can't resist the occasion for a dig at the Church as a politically subversive and morally dodgy organization, one wonders if the Ordinariate is getting under the episcopal skin or if he will just suck up the future in the C of E with married lesbian bishops and matching mitres in the Xmas stockings.

26 October 2012 at 07:43  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Your chase after all homosexuals & a mythic claim to a lowering of the age of consent trivialises & demeans a serious investigation.

The real concerns are those raised by Tom Watson.
Meanwhile, I recommend a clarifying statement by Mr Watson for his own blog, HERE:

26 October 2012 at 08:50  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

G Tingey,

Your caricaturing of His Grace's point and imagined trivialisation of a serious matter demeans and embarrasses you.

26 October 2012 at 09:30  
Blogger John Chater said...

Thanks Katie (and AnonymousInBelfast).

I suspect that His Grace's snipes at the Catholic Church are motivated by a deep longing to return to his true spiritual home, where his views and intellect would at least be appreciated. Unfortunately, he is caught between the Charybdis and Scylla of nationalism and faith, which did for him before, poor fellow. It's a tragedy really, centuries later and still conflicted.

As for Fry – well, his hatred of Catholicism is public record. Odd really, as Fry has pretty much tried to ape the life of Oscar Wilde, yet has fallen short of Wilde's final and welcome capitulation to his Catholicism. Perhaps Fry is a slow reader and has yet to get to the end of whichever biography of Wilde he is reading; in which case we can all look forward to a fulsome apology for all of his anti-Catholic nonsense when he finally sees the light. Perhaps His Grace, almost quoting the abominable Fry in this instance, could step across with him – a double-whammy for Mother Rome…

26 October 2012 at 11:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

John Chater. Interesting point about our Archbishop having an unconscious desire to return to Rome. Let us not forget that Roman Catholicism has different flavours depending in which country you are. In a dynamic country like the UK, it is slightly different than that of a south European state. Because of the existence of the Anglican establishment and the historical re-introduction of Catholicism back to England mainly through Irish immigration, one has always felt that we are ‘hanging on in there’ rather than calling the shots.

Of course, when Anglicanism eventually falls in on itself, USSR style, we, the RCs, are ready and waiting to re-assert our influence on the nation. It is merely a matter of time.

One expects to see more of this sentiment in the next thread up...

26 October 2012 at 12:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Of course, when Anglicanism eventually falls in on itself,
USSR style, we, the RCs, are ready and waiting to re-assert
our influence on the nation. It is merely a matter of time."

Ignoring what is actually happening in Ireland, of course. :)

26 October 2012 at 12:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Catholicism in Ireland is part of the nations fabric. Thousands, Millions if you see the potato famine used as an excuse to depopulate papist Emerald Isle as this man does, died for being Catholics in it’s history. You think the current anger at the way homosexual priests were erroneously forgiven will last ?

Now, any more of this nonsense and you will end up in the bag...

26 October 2012 at 13:11  
Blogger len said...

John Chater, His Grace having had his fingers( and the rest) burnt with his encounter with Rome is hardly likely to be too keen to repeat the experience.

I cannot see why an Anglican would like to jump from the frying pan into the fire.IF Anglicans had stuck to the spirit of the Reformation and had not embraced 'liberalism' then perhaps they would be empowered with the Spirit and not be 'fair game ' for the 'Siren voices' coming from the direction of Rome.?

26 October 2012 at 17:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len, even though we give you a good kicking on this site, you too can join Rome. You’ll have to drop your heresies though. ALL of them...

26 October 2012 at 17:55  
Blogger len said...

Not even tempted Inspector... I value the truth too much to keep silent!.

26 October 2012 at 18:02  
Blogger len said...

There are many things being revealed which formerly were shrouded in 'darkness'.
I believe the holy Spirit is revealing the true extent in which man has been corrupted and the lengths that fallen man will go to conceal his activities.
People who were formerly heroes 'idols even'are being uncovered and their true personalities , motives and intentions revealed.Institutions which formerly were thought of as 'above board' and' beyond suspicion' are falling like ' packs of Cards'what will be left that one can trust and rely on I wonder?.

26 October 2012 at 18:31  
Blogger len said...

'House of Cards'.

26 October 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Who really supposes that man is more sinful today than yesterday ... than in Eden?

The world is as it is - fallen.

The Seven Cardinal Sins:

- Lust
- Gluttony
- Greed
- Sloth
- Wrath
- Envy
- Pride/Vainglory

These mortal sins, which destroy the life of grace and charity within a person, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is accomplished within the setting of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Are they growing in intensity and frequency? Is man more corrupt today? Will the modern manifestations of depravity result in a definitive, even final, response from God? Is time running out? Who knows? Only God. The timing is not is scripture and the signs of the end times have been signs seen since 33AD.

Our Head Teacher at Primary School -Sister Emeldar - used to say at Assembly:

"Now children.
Start each day as if its your first;
Live each day as though it were your last."

At the time we all thought see was crazy! Today I understand her and thank her.

26 October 2012 at 23:29  
Blogger len said...

Agree with your comment Dodo...that makes twice this year!.

Only the 'vital principle' within a believer is the Spirit of Christ(providing one has been born again) obviously meant that didn`t you?.

27 October 2012 at 09:10  
Blogger Kinderling said...

The only spirit is the spirit of yourself. This is obvious, for 'living water' comes from a spring within and not via the hand.

All other spirits in the name of Goodness are perversions for they rely upon beliefs of the holder and her neighbors.

This is why such egotists are filled with a sense of superiority and victimhood at the same time. For all those who take their identity from Heaven above or the Earth below end up bipolar. Estacy and pain for a sense of life they do not have and army of doctors to dispense tranquilizers.

[yes, yes, I know most cannot hear this, but a few may have seen the Christian Signpost and wondered what Jesus taught].

27 October 2012 at 09:42  
Blogger Frank Jackson said...

Breaking news: St John International head office in London have this week made the decision to grant awards to two known members of a paedophile gang in New Zealand. The awards are to be presented by the Queen’s representative in NZ, the Governor General.

27 October 2012 at 12:20  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


But of course!

Born again through water and the Spirit at Baptism and then Confirmation.

A union with God through Christ once the affliction of original sin is overcome - where we die with Christ and are reborn with Him.

Then, its over to us to respond to God's Grace and His Love for both ourselves and for others - the vital part. A daily struggle. When we fall into mortal sin, as we all so often do, then the Sacrament of Confession restores the living Spirit within us.

So pleased you agree.

27 October 2012 at 15:30  
Blogger John Magee said...


Is it possible the Anglican Church needs it's own "reformation" and a return to it's roots? Maybe if this Church could give up its obsession with trendiness and trade "pop" Christianity for the Gospels and return to its "Catholic" traditon and historic links it would gain the respect and loyality of the people it has lost.

27 October 2012 at 21:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

“Hello, Hello, I’m back ( custody...) again!”

28 October 2012 at 13:34  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

A very perspicacious and thought-provoking article.
Yes it is true that if the same principles and "logic" were applied to the age of consent that have been applied to the legalising of homosexuality, then very soon we will have to lower the age of consent to 13 for everyone in order to "harmonize" and prevent "discrimination".
Then previously criminal acts will be erased from the records and all the fuss about Jimmy Saville will turn out to have been unnecessary.
I note that a PC whinger has called your article "disgusting", a sure sign that it contains some intelligent points!

28 October 2012 at 17:24  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

How childish of Richard Dawkins to call Cramner's blog "nasty". I would hardly call that rational debate. He is no credit to his university training.
But then Dawkins has no expertise outside a tiny area of genetics and his attempts to discuss ethical issues are often clumsy and amateurish in the extreme.

28 October 2012 at 17:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Julia Grasper: "Then previously criminal acts will be erased from the records and all the fuss about Jimmy Saville will turn out to have been unnecessary."

How does this erasure of past criminal records work, Julia? Did it happen when the homosexual age of consent dropped from 21 to 16 too?

It's surprising to me, you see, because as far as I know the campaign to specifically pardon Alan Turing for gross indecency has failed to date.

28 October 2012 at 18:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 October 2012 at 18:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oops, sorry about the misspelt name.

28 October 2012 at 18:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, what on earth are you babbling about and why is my name attached to it?

28 October 2012 at 18:50  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, Infant baptism doesn`t work ..I know this from personal experience. Confirmation doeasn`t work..I know this by the same process.

All these 'events' do is to give you the illusion of' being saved.'

These 'hay and straw' events(which Catholics rely on will' go up in smoke'.What will you rely on then?

28 October 2012 at 20:06  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

Please could Danjo remove the misspelling of my name.
The retrospective erasure of criminal records in respect of homosexual offences with the 16-21 age group has only recently begun, and I have no idea whether it applies to Alan Turing. But I do know that his part in the Bletchley code-breaking enterprise has been wildly exaggerated by homosexual fanatics, who try to insist that he won the war single-handedly and was also "the father of the computer". Actually there was a TV programme only yesterday that told some of the truth - that there were hundreds of people working at Bletchley, dozens of teams on different projects, dozens of codes an ciphers to break, and work on Enigma started well before the war, and well before Turing got there. The real reason they broke the Enigma code was that a German machine was captured from a submarine. Moreover, Enigma was not the hardest code to break. There was another far more complex one called Tunny being used in the last two years of the war, and it was broken by another team without Turing's help. Leading names were Bill Tutte, a young mathematician from Cambridge, and Tommy Flowers, an engineer who can really be said to have built the first computer. Neither of them were homosexual, so neither have had the fuss made about them that Turing has.

29 October 2012 at 16:45  
Blogger John Magee said...


Your posts are excellent but I beieve we owe the existence of the "Enigma machine" to Polish Intelligence. In December 1932, the Polish Cipher Bureau first broke Germany's military Enigma ciphers. Five weeks before the outbreak of World War II, on 25 July 1939, in Warsaw, they presented their Enigma-decryption techniques and equipment to French and British military intelligence. From 1938, additional complexity was repeatedly added to the machines, making the initial decryption techniques decreasingly successful. Nonetheless, the Polish breakthrough represented a vital basis for the later British effort which enabled the British to break the German codes whicj helped win the Battle of The Atlantic and allow the USA to send its vast convoys of war material and troops to Britain in relative safety, though many ships were sunk by German U Boats, especially those in the American convoys loaded with war material going from the USA across the Atlantic north above Norway to Murmansk in the USSR after 1941. Winston Churchill told the King George VI after World War II: "It was thanks to Ultra that we won the war."

A lot is is owed to those Poles who along with many Czechs made up about 20% of the pilots who fought in the Battle of Britian from September 1940 until the spring of 1941.

3 November 2012 at 14:26  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

Thank you, John Magee. I know the Poles made a big contribution to the war in many respects. They never accepted defeat but went on fighting. Can we learn anything from that?
I have to agree with the person above who refers to Stephen Fry as big-headed. He is amazingly conceited and talks a lot of rubbish on his show, with an air of condescending infallibility. He thinks he is the Pope. Apparently he was convicted for credit card theft when still at school and yet got into Oxford. The film in which he acted Wilde was a very cleaned-up version. No hints of the rampant pederasty that Wilde habitually practiced and which is only too visible in much of his writing. But worth seeing for Jude Law's portrayal of the thoroughly obnoxious Lord Alfred Douglas.

3 November 2012 at 22:53  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Certainly here in Salisbury it is an open secret that Ted Heath was an active homosexual even in his later years, while he lived in Salisbury Cathedral Close.

5 November 2012 at 14:54  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older