Thursday, July 04, 2013

Tony Miano arrested for 'hate' speech - full video and police transcript

Regarding the recent account given by street preacher Tony Miano concerning his arrest at the hands of Wimbledon police, we now have the full video and transcript of the police interrogation.

Unless you want to hear the entire sermon (if only to establish that his subject was pan-sexual immorality, as opposed to anything aimed specifically at homosexuals), fast-forward to c25mins, when the two police officers make their appearance (and one threatens seizure of the camcorder). You can clearly hear their legal reasoning; the allegations made by two women; and an explanation of their understanding of the law as it relates to public order offences.

Here is the transcript of the police interview. It is quoted in its entirety because it doesn't quite corroborate Mr Miano's own video account of his experience. He specifically stated that the police asked him if he would be prepared to feed a hungry homosexual (corroborated in Christian Concern's press release). This transcript establishes that these words were, in fact, Mr Miano's own; not those of the interrogating police officer. This sort of misinformation or exaggeration really doesn't aid a person's credibility. The police do, however, pursue a distinct line of theological doctrinal inquiry (highlighted in bold), which amounts to a wholly improper interrogation of Mr Miano's conscience and personal beliefs:
Tony Miano Interview with Police
Rough Draft of Transcription
Date of Interview: 1 July 2013
Date of Transcription: 4 July 2013
Note: Tony Miano in Italics
Police Interviewer in Regular Script
Michael Phillips, solicitor for Mr. Miano italicized and capped by “LR:”
Begin :

This interview is being tape recorded, and... [unclear] Wimbledon police station. And there are no other officers present. We are at Interview Room Three at Wimbledon Police Station... and I am interviewing... Could you please state your name and date of birth?

Anthony Edward Miano, date of birth is Feb 22, 1964.

Thank you very much, also present is?

LR: Michael Phillips, [unclear] legal representative.

Thank you very much. The date is the first of July, 2013 and the term is 21:08, so 9:08 in the evening. Okay. So, Tony this interview is being tape recorded so should this ever go to court one of the tapes will be sealed and it can be used in evidence should this ever get that far.


Okay, Brilliant. At the time of your arrest today, by PC Green, which was at 16:50, you were cautioned by him. Do you remember that? Do you remember him saying something along those lines? You’re under arrest and hence I’m cautioni ng you? Do you remember that?

You’ll have to define cautioning.

Basically what it means is he would have said something, I can repeat it to you, and you tell me if you recognize it. He would have said to you, you do not have to say anything but it may harm your defense if we later rely on this in court. Anything you do say may be given evidence.


Also I appreciate this isn’t your country of origin and you haven’t been arrested before by us. So I will explain caution to you, okay? The first part is, I’ll break it down into three parts, okay? The first part is you don’t have to say anything. Okay, that is your legal right in this country, you can sit here in silence if you want for this interview. I’m going to ask you some questions so if you do wish to take that right then I would appreciate it if you could just say no comment. The reason for that is at least I know one, you’ve at least understood the question and two, you’ve heard it.

I understand.

Okay. The second part is, should you not say anything here, and give a defense should this ever go to court, the court might, may draw its own conclus ions, sorry, as to why you didn’t just tell me now. Okay?


And the last bit is, as I said to you in the beginning, this interview is being tape recorded. One of these tapes will be sealed, and should this ever go to court that seal will remain around it until the court and be opened in front of your legal representation and the criminal prosecution service, okay, and they can play it in court as evidence. Okay?

I understand.

Okay, happy to understand caution?

I do.

Brilliant. Are you happy? [directed to legal representation]

LR: I’m pleased.

Marvelous, alright. As I said to you earlier on, you were arrested by PC Green at 16:50 for a Section 5 Public Order Act with a homophobic aggravating factor. Okay? Do you want to tell me what you were doing outside Centre Court Shopping Center today at that time?

I was preaching the Gospel.

Okay. Were you by yourself?

I was with several friends, a few from the United States and a few from here in the London area.

Okay, and how long have you been preaching the Gospel for?

In totality?

I’m sorry, as in in this country, as in recently?

During this visit since June 22nd.

So since June 22nd, okay yeah. Sorry just to make you aware as well I will be making notes noth ing to worry about just for my benefit later on.

I understand.

You’ve been here since June 22nd, is that right?

Yes .

Okay, and you’ve been preaching the Gospel. Is there any specific part of the Gospel you were preaching?

All of it.

Okay, and you’re starting from the beginning and working your way through?

Yes, I will preach through different passages of Scripture. And part of proclaiming the Gospel is sharing the law of God, bringing people to a knowledge of their sin so that they will understand their need for a savior.

Okay. With regards to the group of people. Is it, would you, break it up into sections and do a bit each or would you do do the whole book and someone else would do the whole Gospel? Or does it how does it work?

Each person preaches basically until they’re done. They preach the Gospel message as they feel so lead to do. And then someone else would start from the beginning and preach their own message.

Okay, and obviously, one of the things that caused a scene was the cameras. Do you film there?

Yes .

What’s the purpose of filming the preaching?

For our own protection, for one, just in case accusations are made against us.

Like this.

Like this, yes. Just in case there’s any type of physical assault against us, so that we can document that as well. Also for the edification of other Christians. We use these videos to train other Christians how to share the Gospel. So those are basically the reasons.

Okay. So if we talk about sort of the incident surrounding your arrest. Okay, do you remember specifically what happened when you were arrested? All of the events leading up to your arrest? Anything stand out as the reason why you think you were arrested? Not necessarily that you agree with why you were arrested I just want.

LR: [unclear] if you could just give the lead up to what happened?

Sure, I was preaching from a passage of Scripture in 1 Thessalonians Chapter 4.

You have to let me write that down .


1 Thessalonian...

Chapter 4.

Thank you.

I believe the passage was verse 1 through I think verse 11 or 12.

Verse 1 through to 11/12.

In that passage of Scripture, the apostle Paul encourages the Thessalonians to abstain from all forms of sexual immorality. And to live a holy life, that is consistent with a life devoted to God and the holiness of God.

Okay, so you were preaching this chapter, or these verses from this chapter?


Okay, and then what happened?

And I was preaching about various forms of sexual immorality. Both homosexual and heterosexual, including fornication, which is sex prior to marriage.

Okay .

And including adultery, not only the cheating on a spouse but also looking at someone with lust. For Jesus said whoever looks at a person to lust after them, that person has already committed adultery with that person in their heart. And that all forms of sexual immorality is sin in the eyes of God. Sin that God will judge, but sin that also God will forgive. Now, prior to being able to get to the good news of the Gospel, I was stopped. So I was still working my way through the law of God and the consequences of sin, be fore I, I was stopped before I could get to the good news 5 of how someone could receive forgiveness for that sin and the free gift of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ.

Okay. And you were stopped by? Do you remember who stopped you?

Well Officer Green, Constable Green. There were several officers with him, I didn’t get all their names. One officer was named Ed.

Yeah, that would be PC Green.

Okay, who else am I thinking of? Officer Green was the officer who brought me in?

Yeah, his name is Ed yeah.

Oh well there was another officer.

Yeah, it would be PC Bailey [unclear] I would imagine. But, prior to your arrest, do you remember anyone who may have made any comments to you taking exceptions as to your comment?

Yes .

Okay, talk me through what happened in that instance.

Well, first there was an older gentleman who told me F off. I won’t say exactly what he said. But told me to F off as he was getting on the bus behind me. And then a woman, presumably, the woman who a pparently called the police, she likewise told me to F off as she was walking into the mall and I don’t recall exactly what I said to her. But at one point I asked, I would love to dialogue with you about this.


And that’s when she walked into the mall and she came back down a short time later. It looked like she was filming with her phone [unclear]. And shortly after the police arrived.

Okay, the lady in question, I would make the assumption, I haven’t met her, but I would make the assumption, as you have, that she is the complainant in that instance. She, I won’t bore you, well I say bore you, but I won’t read [unclear] the whole statement because it just details the fact that she was there, at around today’s date outside Center Court Shopping Cen tre at around 2:30. Okay? She says that she was a pedestrian, so she was on foot. Okay, and she walked out of the shopping center exit near to Wimbledon train station. Is that in relation to where you were, do you feel?

That Wimbledon train station is over the hill from where we were. We were standing...

There is an entrance just by the center court entrance.

Oh there is? I wasn’t aware of that. The entrance I’ve always come out of...

The one at the top?

The one across the street from my favorite rest aurant out here. [unclear restaurant name] I didn’t know there was one closer to the actual mall.

Okay well yea, I mean.

I just recall her walking down the hill in our direction, in my direction, and then walking towards the center court? [unclear] Yeah , she was walking toward that entrance.

And at about 2:30 the first time she recognized you, she thought nothing of it at the time. Her intention was to go out to try and obtain tickets for tennis.

At 2:30?

Yeah, she came back at half past four and this is when the incident occurred in your direction. She’s just detailing how the incident occurred. Sorry, it was at ten past four. She says that she walked back down to the entrance to centre court, which is the shopping centre, not center court tennis, and she noticed that what she described as a male who had originally been speaking about God on the microphone was now filming another male in a red t - shirt. Does that sound about right to you?

Well, my friend who [unclear], he was filming the preaching.

I mean your t-shirt is burgundy.

Yeah, it’s not a t-shirt but that was me.

She says again thinking nothing of it, she walked by. She got about five metres from the man in the red t - shirt and she heard him sa y, “homosexuality is a sin, we all know it’s wrong.” Did you say that?

Words to that effect, yes.

Okay, she says she was extremely offended by this, which caused her a lot of distress. She said the microphone the man was speaking into was attached to a loudspeaker and could be heard by a large captive audience. She said she mouthed, “fuck you.”

I’m glad she admitted to that.

Yes, and she says, for the benefit of this we are going to say you are, was there anyone else wearing a red t-shirt?

No it was me.

Okay, so she says that you said this, and you said, “tell me to fuck off, will you come and have a discourse with me?”

I said words to that effect, that I would like to have a dialogue with you.


I wouldn’t have used the word discourse.

Okay. She says that she was with another person who was around [unclear], she saw that she was angry and took her by the arm and led her away. They apparently went to have a discussion about it. And she said due to the man making homophobic statements, saying homophobic statements in the public place, that she felt an offense had been committed and she called the police. While she was waiting for them to arrive, she said you said, “God wants the world to be ordered as one man and one woman, heterosexuality. Homosexuality, lesbianism, and fornication is wrong. God knows that, you know that. Will any man here man up and agree with me or that girl earlier?”

That’s not what I said.

That’s not what you said.

No, particularly at the end.


I did use the phrase, “man up.”

So you said, “man up.”

Right, but that is in reference to a man who had walked by and cursed at me. And I asked, in general, when will the men of this community, man up and stand by their convictions? Basically come and talk to me inst ead of just coming by and cursing me. I didn’t say when will people man up and agree with me. I didn’t say that.

So you just wanted to...

I wanted, men to instead of whispering as they’re walking by, to stop and to have a dialogue and to stand by their convictions and actually talk about it.

Okay. So basically as you said earlier, to spread God’s word in a sense. You wanted essentially to teach, well I can’t remember the exact words earlier on, but you know, preach the Gospel.

Yes .

So, she also says that these, I can’t even pronounce it, vitriolic statements, again caused me alarm and distress. And she says, while this was happening, a man with a gray [unclear] started to film her reactions to the words. She said that she felt intimidated by that. And that’s basically, she just goes on to describe you. She says a white male, overweight.

He is, he’s working on it though.

Well, no. She actually says the red t-shirt. I wouldn’t suggest you’re overweight. [cordial laughter]

Oh, I am too. I need to lose some weight myself.

She says about late to mid 50s.

[unclear] Wow, close, that’s pretty much.

She’s a bit harsh. American accent and she said she’s never seen you before. And she said it last about 5 - 10 minutes. Okay, so I ’ve read you the statement, what do you think about that? How do you feel about what she said?

I feel she was trying to intimidate us by filming us.

Yeah .

So it’s interesting that she said she was intimidated by being filmed. The camera was, I don’t re call how long the camera was actually on her because I was preaching, but I do distinctly recall her, her, filming me. And saying to her that I hope she will watch the video and listen to it and come to repentance and faith in Christ. Or words to that effect.

And what was your... I appreciate you saying this to me earlier. What was your sole intention by doing this today?

My sole intention, my faith, my Christian faith teaches me to love God with all of my heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love my ne ighbor as myself. There is nothing more loving that I will ever do for another human being than to warn them of God’s wrath to come against sin and point them to the only one who could forgive their sin, and that’s Jesus Christ.


So my intent was t o love people with the Gospel.

Okay, and you believe through, your, your religion, that homosexuality is a sin?

Yes, I do.

How do you feel... Members of the public may feel?

[unclear interruption] LR: Can we just, I think it’s important just to say, to distinguish between homosexuality as an individual, and the sin itself. Would you be able to just distinguish between that. Is a homosexual person evil, they have...

No, a person who tells a lie, a person who steals, a person who harbors bitterness or resentment or hatred in their heart, a person who is discontent with what God has given them in their life and covets what other people have, a person who takes God’s name in vain, who is selfish, a person, if a person sins against God they face the same righteous judgement from God as any person committing any other sin.


LR: So what, just to recall the distinction between the act itself and person who has the inclination to do the act. So they’re not the same. You’re not saying that person is an evil person just because they have an inclination to be homosexual. For that reason alone.

I’m not sure I understand the question. The point is that all of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That’s why when I was speaking out there today, I wasn’t speaking exclusively about homosexuality. I was speaking about for nication of any kind. Heterosexual fornication, heterosexual adultery, looking at a person with lust, whether or not you’re married, any form of sexual immorality is a sin before God.

Okay. Let me give you an example just for my benefit. You’ll have to excuse my ignorance regarding religion. You know... If two males walked past you holding hands, and in your view apparently homosexuals, would you consider them a sinner.


Okay, that is what I wanted to know. So in that sense of the word, in that respect, do you feel what you were doing today, preaching the gospel, making the comments about homosexuality being a sin, do you think that that could have upset people?

I think it could upset people because people love their sin. I think if someone walked by when I was talking about lying, and they had just lied, someone would be upset with that. I think if I was talking about hating another person and someone was harboring hatred in their heart towards someone else, they could be upset with that. That’s be cause people do not like to hear that they have sinned against a holy God.

Okay, the issue as well is that not everyone is religious, so not everyone would see homosexuality as a sin, would they?

I don’t think that’s relevant. Because God sees it as a sin.

No? Okay. [unclear]

We don’t determine... excuse me?

So you [unclear] are you offended by it because you are religious?

Am I offended by what?

By homosexuality.

Homosexuals don’t do anything to me.


They offend God. Just as...

Okay. It doesn’t offend you.

Just as my sin offends God.

It doesn’t offend you?

No. I harbor no bitterness or resentment...


Toward homosexuals or...

That’s basically what I was getting at. You don’t have any, you don’t have any...

I don’t have any anger towards them.

And you never discriminate against them?


So if someone you knew as a homosexual came up to you and asked you for a favor, you'd quite happily offer them that favor would you?

The word of God tells me to love your neighbor as myself.


So if a homosexual walked up to me and said, I’m hungry and I need something to eat. I would walk them to the nearest restaurant, give them something to eat, and share the Gospel with them because I love them.

Okay, so. Tell me what you were doing today then. It’s apparent from this statement we have, that you have upset someone. Okay. She’s saying that what you said she found distressing, okay? Someone else has told you to “F off” as you put it. A gentleman, so whatever you were saying at that time people obviously found distressing I don’t know.

There’s also, according to the definition of terms we’re using, it’s kind of distressing to tell someone to F off, isn’t it?

Well I’d agree with you, a hundred percent. Because as far as I understand, swearing in a public place, isn’t acceptable, yeah?

I agree.

Yeah. Obviously I can only work with the information I’m given today.

Sure, I understand. I’m not looking for a pound of flesh from anyone.

No no no, I appreciate that.

I’m not looking for any retribution.

I can assure that if you had told me at the time that she had told you to F off the same thing would have happened to her. Because as far as I’m concerned, two wrongs don’t make a right.

I appreciate that.

The issue obviously as well, is, well, you know, I appreciate what you’re saying regarding your beliefs and the fact that you were preaching the Gospel. As I said to you earlier, not everyone is religious. Okay, so they don’t have an understanding as you, as you obviously as you do of the Gospel.


I certainly don’t. So, do you accept that what you were saying, is likely to upset some people.

No, I don’t accept that. Because I’ve also seen people with tears in their eyes come to repentance and fai th in Jesus Christ, realizing that they’ve sinned against God. Regardless, my understanding is that what the word of God says about the nature of man is that regardless of what a person expresses with their mouth, or with their demeanor, or with their body language, even if they would say that they were offended or insulted does not necessarily mean that’s the case. It could very well be that they’ve been convicted but their heart and they don’t want the preacher to see that.


And that’s always my hope.


My hope is that that lady will go home tonight and she will turn from her sin and put her trust in Jesus Christ the Lord for her salvation. That one day I will get to worship with her side by side in heaven.

Okay. And, last question I’ve got for you, is do you think what you did was acceptable in a public place...


With, I don’t know how many people walking past you during the day bearing in mind the tennis championships are on, do you feel that what you did, making the comments you made, is 100% acceptable in a public place?

Not only 100% acceptable, but commanded by God.


I’m commanded by God to love people and to proclaim the Gospel to as many people as I can for as long as I can.

Will you do this again tomorrow?

If I have the opportunity, yes.

Okay. Okay. I’m quite happy about, I’ve asked the questions I need to ask. This is your interview, so this is your opportunity to give your account of what happened today leading up to your arrest, anything else you wish to, you think’s relevant to the case. This is your opportunity to give it so I will offer you the opportunity now before I turn the tapes off. Is there anything else you would like to add?

I don’t think so, I think we’ve covered everything.

LR: Just a couple questions I had. What would y ou say to anybody that said you were trying to insult people.

I would say they’re wrong.

LR: And why would you say that?

The reason for being out there. The reason I flew all the way from Southern California to London, was to love people and share the Gospel with them. I hope to be used by God to see people come to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. There’s never intent to insult, there’s never any intent to inflame. Of course people aren’t going to agree with everything I say, just as I don't agree with everything other people say. But my intention, is, to love people as others loved me and shared the Gospel with me so that I could receive forgiveness of my sin and the free gift of eternal life. That’s why I came to London last year during the Olympi cs. That’s why I came this year to Wimbledon. And that’s why I hope I can come back as many times as possible. Because I love this country and I love the people of this country. And I don’t want to see anybody perish in their sin.

LR: And [unclear] just about the cultural context. Some people might want to say, well that’s America that’s more religious. This country is less religious. What would you have to say?

Well, certainly regarding the issue at hand there’s no difference between our two countries, culturally. I’m not uninformed as to where your country is regarding this issue because my country is in the same place. And the message I brought today, and the message I’ve brought about many different subjects are no different than the messages I preach to the people in my own country. Because the issues are all the same.

Okay, fair enough. Yeah, happy?

LR: Yeah.

Okay, as I’ve said, I’ve got nothing else to ask you. Obviously I’ve covered everything I need to cover. We’ll just establish that you don’ t feel like you’ve done anything wrong. You’ve come over here, you’ve come to share your love of God. You’ve come to share, to preach the Gospel to people...

All people.

Yeah, certainly not going to say that it’s only certain people. And you know, you feel that what you’ve done is not necessarily upsetting people but in fact helping people. Would you agree with that?


So, I appreciate your views on it. Okay. Is ther e anything else you wish to say?

Not at this time.

Okay, brilliant. In that case, this interview is concluded at 21:34, on the first of July 2013. [End.]


Blogger Paul Huxley said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 July 2013 at 17:54  
Blogger Christian Contender said...

Mr Miano is doing no more than publicly upholding God's commandments. The Bible teaches unequivocally that homosexuality is a breach of God's moral law. Our Head of State promised in her coronation, on oath, "to maintain the laws of God" according to Scripture.

It is an act of compassion to call sinners of all kinds to repentance. This nation is turning its back upon the Christian faith - that is the bottom line.

4 July 2013 at 18:11  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

The first comment deleted above by the author said:

"Tony's video was written before a draft transcript was available - hence the discrepancy. It's hard to say what being arrested on spurious charges in a foreign country and being held for several hours can do to your memory."

This may very well be so, and, being the case, it is stranger still that Christian Concern's press release (issued after acquisition and complete Americanisation of transcript) confirms the mistaken account. It states:

"He was then later interviewed by the investigating officer with his solicitor, Michael Phillips, instructed by Christian Legal Centre, present. One of the questions the officer asked was whether he would give a hungry homosexual person something to eat. Mr Miano replied that he would."

This is patently untrue.

4 July 2013 at 18:18  
Blogger Peter D said...

What a complete and utter waste of police time and public money! Why on earth weren't the real offenders arrested - those who used inflammatory language and told this preacher to "F-off".

He should sue the police.

And the intelligence of the officer leading this interview leaves something to be desired - "okay", "brilliant". And those leading questions; dearie me.

Arrested under Section 5 of the Public Order Act - with a homophobic aggravating factor? Mr Miano replied, "I was preaching the Gospel."

End of.

4 July 2013 at 19:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Now listen up chaps, the Inspector has something very important to tell you...

This incident has been covered by Pink News. The comments part of the article contain the most outrageous, and dare it be said, bigoted notions that we Christians hate gay people. Of course, nothing can be further from the truth, and this man would tell them that if he possessed sufficient equality with them to post there himself. But he doesn’t so he can’t.

As it is rumoured that the government has NOT finished yet with the gay agenda despite their version of marriage all but assured, it is vital we, that is YOU, help address what is otherwise going to be viewed by government advisors as the stark truth.

If you can spare a few minutes, go to that site and reassure the inmates that we love them dearly, and it is only our concern for their souls that we criticise their wanton behaviour.

God be with you.

4 July 2013 at 19:07  
Blogger jsampson1945 said...

Your Grace, I see the question about giving a homosexual something to eat right there in the transcript you have published. It is very confusing that you say that Christian Concern's claim is untrue. What point are you making, anyway?

4 July 2013 at 19:17  
Blogger David B said...

The whole thing seems to be something of a storm in a teacup.

Compare it to the treatment of women, Christians, atheists, and often other Muslims of different sects in Muslim theocracies and it gives some perspective, but it is regrettable for all that.

I suppose that if complaints are made the police are duty bound to investigate, but in this case it seems to me that a couple of things are clear, and should swiftly have emerged during the course of the investigation.

Those being that the preacher's activities were legitimate freedom of expression, and that the complainants could well have been cautioned that they should stop wasting police time.

The complaints were, to my mind, ill advised, and I anticipate that those here who, like me, regard themselves as secular liberals will agree with me, whatever their sexual orientation.

I still take the view, though, that the preacher's activities were more likely to present the public with a view of Christianity more likely to put people off it than attract them.


4 July 2013 at 19:23  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...


You do? You see it right there in the transcript, do you?

Have you read the article? It is quite plainly stated. The words were not those of the police officer, as Mr Miano alleged: that question was never framed in those terms. That is the point His Grace is making anyway.

4 July 2013 at 19:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I can understand why the preacher might misremember stuff himself, the statements of events from memory are famously unreliable as evidence.

I can see nothing wrong as such with what he was saying in his preaching but I suppose I know enough about Christianity to understand the context. The use of public address equipment might be a nuisance in itself though.

The police seem to have handled that pretty well, being polite and chatty. Similarly, the preacher behaved well after the police arrived. The potential seizure of the camcorder is surely right as it's evidence and I think the policemen was right to point this out in case the holder wanted to disappear.

I'd like to know whether the change to the Public Order Act has actually come into force now given that it has Royal Assent. If so, the police ought to know that but I note that they didn't use "insult" when they explained what was going on.

The transcript shows the direction of travel in the interview: trying to determine any intention to offend. However, there's some strange stuff in there that he would have been within his rights to "plead the fifth" over.

I'd like to know more about the lead up to this because there seems to have been some possible aggravation in the dialogue which might have some bearing on it, thus mitigating the suggestion of heavy-handedness police action in arresting him.

4 July 2013 at 19:32  
Blogger Peter D said...

@ 19:07. Job done.

4 July 2013 at 19:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

As an aside, I wonder what the point of preaching like this actually is other than to tick a duty box for the preacher. You can see everyone simply walking past doing their best to ignore him. A couple of kids look a bit scared and hurry on. Some teenagers smirk. I've seen the same reaction many times near the clock tower in Leicester when local preachers do the same thing.

4 July 2013 at 19:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I also think the police have a justification for arrest as there was clearly a complaint and reasonable grounds to investigate. The main culprit in all of this is the person complaining. Jeez. Grow a thicker skin.

4 July 2013 at 19:42  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

What an appalling waste of police time. This speech/hate crappage is the most stupidly ham-fisted piece of legislation to hit the statute books since trial by ordeal.

Of course the man should be free to speak or preach; this is street level democracy. The fact that someone chooses not to challenge his views but prefers to tell him to 'fuck you' then calls the police is what should be unlawful. She is the one who should have been arrested for wasting police time.

Not often I find myself agreeing with DoDo.

4 July 2013 at 19:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good show Peter D, and so elegantly put too.

4 July 2013 at 19:49  
Blogger Peter D said...

"The main culprit in all of this is the person complaining."

Agreed - but she wasn't arrested, detained and quizzed over motives and beliefs. That's the point.

The police are enforcing one world view because of political correctness. And what's going to happen once we have homosexual *marriage* and a public servant expresses such opinions - in or out of work?

4 July 2013 at 19:54  
Blogger David Hussell said...

I feel that few people are likely to be brought to faith by these actions, but the vital, non-negotiable political principle at stake here is obviously, freedom of speech, specifically freedom to preach the Gospel.

The incident itself is a storm in a tea cup, but the principle exemplified is the lifeblood of democracy.

The brave example provided by this American cousin may, may just, strengthen the hand of those who, at present in The Lords, are debating the necessity of respecting freedom of speech, action and conscience. Why should a historically free people tiptoe around every sensitivity? That is no way to live our lives.

I admire the courage of the preachers and appreciate their strong witness, and thank God for their actions.

4 July 2013 at 19:57  
Blogger Jim McLean said...

I am still at a loss as to the evidence and reason for homophobic and hate crime. It is not an offence to upset people, it may be an offence to spread hate messages. But the police interview did not specify exactly what it was the man had done which constituted a crime.

4 July 2013 at 20:12  
Blogger Drastic Plastic said...

I think it's a little harsh to complain that Tony Miano didn't remember exactly who said what. His account is substantively correct. Would any of us remember the exact words, without a transcript, of an interrogation of over half an hour starting something like 14 hours after you got up, and after 4 hours in a cell? Human nature comes into this! He was held for another three hours after this, so had no opportunity to record what happened.

Obviously the police have released the transcript to try to discredit him. But it's still very scary.

In a free country you don't get cross-examined by the police for half an hour, and held for seven hours, not about what you did, but about what you think. And Miano, evidently, is a generous and kindly soul who wouldn't hurt a fly.

Readers might like to look at the reporting and comments on Pink News and Gay Star. They seethe with hate.

And, after all, you do have to hate someone quite a lot to throw them in a cell for their opinions.

If "hate" is criminal, perhaps the police are looking in the wrong place.

4 July 2013 at 20:14  
Blogger ukFred said...

At least this man was able to keep recording what had been happening. In Edinburgh, the cops pulled the preacher into a police car to avoid being recorded by the video operator , and indeed the second policeman kept moving to try to prevent the interview with the constable and the preacher being recorded. It appears that there is a co-ordinated effort to stop the spread of Christianity in this country, headed by the public sector.

4 July 2013 at 20:18  
Blogger David B said...

Jim McLean,has he actually been charged with anything?

And, ukFred, I don't think that police dislike of being recorded is confined to when the incident in question is to do with an evangelist.

I don't think they like being recorded in the course of any demonstration, for instance.


4 July 2013 at 20:25  
Blogger Peter D said...

Drastic Plastic said ...
"Readers might like to look at the reporting and comments on Pink News and Gay Star. They seethe with hate."

Indeed they do ... dementedly so too. What's as bad is that PN allows no dissenting opinion.

4 July 2013 at 20:27  
Blogger Drastic Plastic said...

So what he experienced was:

Police: So if someone you knew as a homosexual came up to you and asked you for a favor, you'd quite happily offer them that favor would you?

Miano: The word of God tells me to love your neighbor as myself.

Police: Okay.

Miano: So if a homosexual walked up to me and said, I’m hungry and I need something to eat. I would walk them to the nearest restaurant, give them something to eat, and share the Gospel with them because I love them.

The police question, itself quite improper, was answered by Miano that way. I think it is fairly understandable that Miano wouldn't remember the precise wording that led to that exchange. Which of us would?

A bit unfortunate, tho, that this was the headline tag (sorry Cranmer).

4 July 2013 at 20:28  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Aw look, fellow Christians: Mr Miano has it about right - the command comes from God, and it doesn't come with a guarantee that we will evade the consequences of doing so.

Jesus was quite specific on this point: " will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles." (Matthew 10:18)

Don't lose sight of the fact that not only has Mr Miano now been able to testify to the public at Wimbledon, but he has testified, and preached the Gospel to PCs Bailey and Green, not to mention countless others who take the time to read the transcript or watch the film in its entirety.

God knows what He is doing when He permits His servants to be handed into the power of civic authorities.

4 July 2013 at 20:30  
Blogger Muggins said...

I don't agree with what this guy says, actually. but let's be clear:

There is no way to determine incontestably whether a person "hates". Furthermore, how do we judge whether a comment is likely to cause hatred or violence? We can't, and the law is being interpreted in a selective and highly political way.

The hate-speech laws are a dangerous mistake. They need to be repealed. They can only be used to exercise control over speech and thought.

4 July 2013 at 20:40  
Blogger Peter D said...

David B said...
"Jim McLean,has he actually been charged with anything?"

If I may say so, you're missing the entire point.

He was arrested without good reason, on the say so a woman who, arguably, was the one who had actually committed a public order offence. She 'felt offended' - poor dear. The police officer conducting the interview, 'Mr okay, brilliant', as good as says so. Then he was quizzed over his beliefs, the questions being rather leading in nature, and held in a cell for hours before release without charge.

Honestly. it's like something out of 'The Thin Blue Line' - if it wasn't so troubling as a sign of where we're heading.

4 July 2013 at 20:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Was it just me that was terrified the toddler was going to run out in front of a bus, too?

4 July 2013 at 20:54  
Blogger Nick said...

Regardless of any memory issues, this is a disturbing sign of the way society is going. The idea of betraying and lying about your fellow citizens because of personal opinions has been a feature of many totalitarian systems. The politicians should be made fully aware of this case (and similar ones) so that when they finally acquiesce to the demands of the gay lobby, and we start to see widespread persecution by hate-filled gay activists, they should know they played a big part in this.

Mr Miano, I thank you for your courage in speaking the truth about sexual immorality to a society which is heading towards a moral abyss.

4 July 2013 at 20:56  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

I'd love to know why people who don't believe in God are offended by being told what God will do to them if they sin.
And if I am wrong and they are believers, even if they are liberal revisionists, then shame on them for not accepting those who believe the Bible's view to have the freedom to express this view.
And, overall, shame on the police for even entertaining this as a crime, let alone actually taking it further!!!

4 July 2013 at 20:58  
Blogger Nick said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 July 2013 at 21:22  
Blogger Nick said...


"I'd love to know why people who don't believe in God are offended by being told what God will do to them if they sin"

Maybe some of these people aren't as atheistic as they wish they were. You are right, if somebody is totally atheistic, then why should they be troubled by anything the Gospel says?

As to the Police, this was the same police "service" that stood indolently at the end of streets and watched their city burn during the riots. It seems that tackling REAL crime is too much like hard work.

4 July 2013 at 21:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I don't believe in a god but if someone tells me something I do is wrong then at the end of the day they're judging me. Now, how I react depends on the context that happens in. Intellectually, I don't give a stuff if a Muslim thinks drinking alcohol is wrong or a Christian thinks my wearing a condom is wrong. However, if I'm going about my daily business and someone is bellowing that and saying I will burn in Muslim or Christian hell then I might be tempted to react. That's not a reaction to the belief or a worry that it might be true of course but to the presence of someone presuming to judge me in public.

4 July 2013 at 21:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

By react, I mean look condescendingly back and perhaps say "weirdo" in reply. Or in Tony Miano's case, if he told me he loved me despite his words then I'd be tempted to reply that it's not the first time a 'bear' with a terrifying moustache has said that to me and, as ever, I'm not at all interested.

4 July 2013 at 21:45  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

"someone presuming to judge me in public"


So here is the nub of the issue then for gays?


4 July 2013 at 21:51  
Blogger Nick said...


So why would you be worried about that person judging you, especially if he wasn't even talking to you personallY?

If his beliefs mean nothing to you then you would not place any value, good or bad, on what he says.

4 July 2013 at 21:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nick, I'm not worried at all. Haven't I made that clear? I think it's rude or presumptuous. However, if it makes you feel better to imagine that I'm not as atheistic as I say instead then knock yourself out.

4 July 2013 at 21:58  
Blogger Peter D said...

" ... in Tony Miano's case, if he told me he loved me despite his words then I'd be tempted to reply that it's not the first time a 'bear' with a terrifying moustache has said that to me and, as ever, I'm not at all interested."

Interesting comment.

4 July 2013 at 22:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Mild wit, before you start again.

4 July 2013 at 22:03  
Blogger Peter D said...

Here's the depth of depravity of one commentator on PN:

" ... what was needed was some male to ask him :
‘yes the penis is evil – so can you help save my ‘soul’ by sucking the demons out ...?’

4 July 2013 at 22:03  
Blogger Peter D said...

I do know ...

4 July 2013 at 22:04  
Blogger David B said...

Jim McLean, my enquiry about whether he has been charged does not diminish my concern that the police over-reacted, As I said in a former post, if they had complaints made they were duty bound to investigate, but it should have become rapidly apparent to them that if anyone needed charging it was the complainants wasting police time.

Would you not agree, though, that had he been charged there would be a lot more cause for concern?


4 July 2013 at 22:22  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Ask for a favour; Ask for some food; is there such a difference that you have to attack the Christian for exaggeration? I have been an avid supporter of your blogs but am baffled at you antagonism toward Christian Concern and their layer, called in to help and ensure there was no injustice.
Did Christian Concern not come to your help with the ASA? Did you ask them?
As others said, this man needs to praised over his following of centuries of street preaching.
Give him a break Cranmer and don't pick at nats.

4 July 2013 at 22:33  
Blogger Peter D said...

David B

The concern is the police presumed there was 'probable cause' on the say so of one passer-by - who was guilty of an offence herself.

He was arrested, finger-printed, DNA samples taken, photographed, questioned and held in a cell for hours.

As a liberal, surely this is sufficient cause for concern?

4 July 2013 at 22:35  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 July 2013 at 22:38  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Is it that you are such an avid CofE you don't approve of secular activity outside of the clerical ministrations in the controlled sanctuary.

4 July 2013 at 22:39  
Blogger Roy said...

DanJ0 said...

I also think the police have a justification for arrest as there was clearly a complaint and reasonable grounds to investigate. The main culprit in all of this is the person complaining. Jeez. Grow a thicker skin.

Don't you ever read the newspapers? The police often ignore complaints. A few years ago a disabled mother committed suicide after being repeatedly tormented by anti-social youths. She had repeatedly complained to the police who did absolutely nothing.

That case was by no means untypical. In the last few days a group of "Travellers" caused trouble in Eric Pickles' constituency. Many people phoned the police but the police did nothing. Before moving on the Travellers deliberately ruined the cricket pitch. Perhaps the police would have responded if the Travellers had made some supposedly homophobic remarks.

To take a completely different example, haven't you ever heard of the police ignoring the use of cannabis and other "recreational" jobs?

If the police ignore complaints about unlawful behaviour whenever it suits them, why on earth should they respond to complaints from politically correct people who obviously want to stifle freedom of speech?

4 July 2013 at 22:49  
Blogger David B said...

That, Roy, is a reasonable point.

I do suspect that often the police are afraid of being seen to be prejudiced, hence their frequent biased behaviour regarding 'hate speech' from Islamic sources.


4 July 2013 at 23:01  
Blogger Peter D said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 July 2013 at 23:11  
Blogger Peter D said...

David B

Nah, they're fearful of an Islamist retaliation, plus they want to be 'diverse' and 'multi-cultural'.

It's an indication that our *liberal society* isn't terribly liberal after-all and is driven by an increasingly anti-Christian agenda.

4 July 2013 at 23:13  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Roy said ..."why on earth should [the police] respond to complaints from politically correct people who obviously want to stifle freedom of speech?"

The answer is "Equality & Diversity". I know a young man who has recently started a college course entitles "Public Services Management". The very first term they dived straight into "Equality & Diversity" indoctrination. The poor sap didn't stand a chance.

I've always told Mrs Rebel Saint that if she thinks we're getting burgled or she's feeling threatened, to get an immediate police response she should say there's a man at the door calling her a filthy paki lesbian or say someone has bumped into the back of her car (the traffic cops love an opportunity to respond to an "incident" which is why you often see 5 or 6 vehicles attending a minor collision).

What police officer in their right mind wants to go and intervene in a potentially threatening & hostile situation when instead you can go and tackle a "hate" crime or such-like. Boosts your crime clear-up statistics without any of the effort or hassle.

4 July 2013 at 23:15  
Blogger William Lewis said...


"I don't believe in a god but if someone tells me something I do is wrong then at the end of the day they're judging me."

Which suggests that your understanding of Christianity is not as good as you think it is.

4 July 2013 at 23:19  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5 July 2013 at 00:01  
Blogger Elizabeth Prata said...


Thank you for posting the video and the transcript. It is appreciated.

As for the quibble you had with the police asking or not asking Mr Miano in those exact words if he would feed a homosexual, Mr Miano's recall corroborates what is on the transcript. He was asked if a homosexual were to ask him for a favor, would Mr Miano grant it. Mr Miano said yes, and then used the example of hunger as the favor being asked.

It's not a problem.

What is a problem is to be arrested for one's beliefs and interrogated for one's beliefs. May the Lord come soon, and meanwhile, I hope that Mr Miano's example of grace and love in preaching the Gospel would touch some hearts and they might be saved.

5 July 2013 at 00:46  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Religious freedom will eventually be reduced to those things you do and say in a church building. If you take those thoughts and actions outside of a church building, you will be subject to punishment. This man has effectively been accused of blasphemy against the reigning worldview. That it would seem is the future.


5 July 2013 at 01:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy: "Don't you ever read the newspapers?"

My point was related to the idea that Miano should sue the police. I see no grounds for that. There was no wrongful arrest as far as I can see.

5 July 2013 at 05:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Elizabeth: "What is a problem is to be arrested for one's beliefs and interrogated for one's beliefs."

He was arrested on suspicion of certain actions. If he was arrested for his beliefs then an awful lot more people would be in police custody.

What is needed here is some CPS guidance so that the police can confidently steer complainers away from the idea that street preachers are being abusive and that 'distress' is better handled by simply walking away.

5 July 2013 at 05:37  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

"There was no wrongful arrest as far as I can see"

Rubbish. It is always wrong to arrest someone for preaching the Gospel.

A good response would be for all Christians in the area to join him next time he preaches

Preach on the same passage of scripture, but this time when he is arrested let there be 100/1000/10000 people start repeating what he says.

Won’t happen in Britain? Then we all need to scurry to back to our homes and wait for the knock on the door.

When it comes we need to realise it is our actions that will enable them to take our children for poisoning their minds. It is our actions that will enable them to rob us of our livelihoods. It is our inaction now that will bring our own ruin.

If we are not prepared to stand up for ourselves. Why should God be bothered?


5 July 2013 at 06:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Rubbish. It is always wrong to arrest someone for preaching the Gospel."

For goodness'sake Phil.

5 July 2013 at 07:21  
Blogger Nick said...


You say you would feel judged bya street preacher who says homosexuality is asin. He is just repeating the Scriptures. Christians do not stand in judgement of anyone. If you feel judged then maybe its your own conscience, if you still have one.

5 July 2013 at 08:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nick: "Christians do not stand in judgement of anyone."

Jeez, Nick. You've been around here long enough to know that's complete bollocks. Theoretically, maybe. But practically, no. Most Christians I come across are riddled with self-righteousness and judgementalism.

"If you feel judged then maybe its your own conscience, if you still have one."

You persist in this. Have you considered that it may be you're merely trying to justify your own behaviour and beliefs instead? For me, there's nothing wrong with my sexual orientation and I think you are a victim of what is essentially a scam. It's your problem, not mine, and I'd free you from that if I could.

I note also the comment in the transcript about people being "convicted" [in] their heart. Again, I question what purpose preaching in the street serves? Perhaps it appeals to other Christians or those polluted by a Christian upbringing but the identifying of 'sin' like that requires the underlying belief system to justify it.

I've no reason to think that the street preacher is setting out to maliciously insult or offend people. Challenge or provoke, yes, but not to maliciously upset people. I'm sure he knows it will potentially upset people though and that there will be adverse reactions. I expect the main purpose is really to stand up in public and proclaim beliefs in the marketplace of ideas so they're not forgotten. Which is fine, of course, as long as he's not being a public nuisance.

5 July 2013 at 08:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also Nick, you might want to think a little more on the last part of this sentence of yours and where that's coming from:

"If you feel judged then maybe its your own conscience, if you still have one."


5 July 2013 at 08:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

And before the other guy pops up again and says I don't understand. I get the theory that Christians stand up and say "I'm a sinner as well as you. We all are! However, I've recognised Jesus as my Lord and Saviour so I'm okay and I'd like you to do the same for your own sake."

5 July 2013 at 08:54  
Blogger LEN said...

I think the main issue we are 'skirting around' is that the Gospel of Jesus Christ IS an offence to many!. Is has been so right from the very beginning.
People do not like the light of the Gospel to shine upon them exposing their true sinful natures.
Many would prefer to remain in the dark about their true condition.
But proper diagnosis of the condition of the patient is the only way to a permanent cure for their terminal condition.

IF people do not want to get saved, IF people want to remain trapped within a sinful lifestyle then God will[with regret]leave them to their own devises but sinful lifestyles will lead to physical and spiritual death.
IF that is your decision then God will respect that.

BUT.....Do not try and shut up the Gospel and close the doorway to salvation for those who would accept God`s offer of salvation because you find the Gospel uncomfortable and incompatible for the lifestyle choices you have chosen!.

5 July 2013 at 09:35  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Well said Len, you've hit the nail on the head.

God gives us graciously, free choice, but will look hard upon those who attempt to silence the truth, preventing others from making their choice.

5 July 2013 at 09:46  
Blogger Unknown said...

That all depends as to what you define as the truth.
Many people, including myself see it as an opinion and no more.

Shouting your spurious beliefs across a crowded high street via a loudhailer is not considered socially acceptable, particularly where others may not concur, or may even be offended by such actions.

This resulted in what many may consider 'incitement to hatred'; I am sure many on here would be upset if Christians were denounced as 'evil' in the same method.

5 July 2013 at 10:46  
Blogger Nick said...


Agreed. Nobody has the right to bar those who do want to hear the Gospel. Those who don't are free to walk away.

5 July 2013 at 10:51  
Blogger LEN said...

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear".
(George Orwell)

Our freedoms our liberties are being slowly eroded and one day we will wake up to see the purpose of 'Political Correctness' was to make people conform to a secular Godless Worldview.
Christians must resist this attempt to destroy the very foundations on which they stand.

There is no one so illiberal as a liberal when he feels challenged.

5 July 2013 at 11:34  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Danjo,

Funnily enough *shock* - I agree with the sentiments of your post at 08.43.

5 July 2013 at 12:00  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace, I am with Mr Integrity and others here. As a lawyer I find no inconsistencies in Tony Miano's video diary account and the police interview. I much enjoyed listening to the recording of his full street preaching that afternoon and I lament that it has to be an American (God bless them) who has to come thousands of miles to tell us plainly what the leaders and elders of the church here should have been saying for months if not years.

The appalling moral decline into gross sin, hetro sexual, homo sexual, lying, cheating, deceiving, greed, discontent, and disbelief is a shame on our Nation and I thank God that people like Tony Miano have a heart to witness to us God's truth and God's Word in love. May God's peace go with him as he returns to America today to celebrate his 28th wedding anniversary with his dear wife and daughters and then flies to Calgary on Sunday to witness for the LORD at the Calgary rodeo.

Praise God all glory to Him.

5 July 2013 at 13:52  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0 said ...
"Again, I question what purpose preaching in the street serves? Perhaps it appeals to other Christians or those polluted by a Christian upbringing but the identifying of 'sin' like that requires the underlying belief system to justify it."

Point completely missed! The purpose is to challenge and prompt people to revise and reform their lives.

And therein lies the threat to civil liberties for people of faith in the years ahead. The idea that somehow a Christian upbringing has a negative impact on a child's development.

I'd worry more about the 'pollution' of children's minds when raised in, let's say, 'alternative families'.

5 July 2013 at 14:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "The idea that somehow a Christian upbringing has a negative impact on a child's development."

That's not what I actually said. Do you do this on purpose? It happens rather a lot. But anyway, are those adults who are Muslim and have Muslim parents polluted by their Muslim upbringing?

5 July 2013 at 14:41  
Blogger Christian Contender said...

It is worth reflecting that open air preaching was the instrument sued of God in the 18th century to rescue this nation from great social degradation and civil unrest.

Through the Evangelical Awakening of the 1700s, in which 'field preaching' and preaching at the market cross were such major factors, there came about all the great social reforms of the 19th century.

What is more, this nation became characterised by a social stability and genuinely peaceful quality of life which was the envy of the world. This was the 'salt' which only the Gospel can bring, and it was the prevailing situation, until we blew it in a fit of "doing our own thing" in the 1960s.

So what an enormous debt this country owes to the Christian Gospel, and to those willing to proclaim it under an open sky.

5 July 2013 at 15:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say chaps, here’s one gay not even Jesus would feed...(from Pink News)

“I helped to start the gay rights movement. I left home at 18 and moved to the West End of London when I started going on what’s now known as the gay scene. There were no organisations or gay media that I knew about so it was hard to know where to go apart from by word or mouth.

I’m Jewish and my family was oppressed over a long period of time. I was bursting with anger over that and then about being homosexual and having no rights. I wanted all that oppression to be lifted so we could all be free to meet men, have sex, and just be open about ones selves. I started protesting as I wanted the laws changes.

I was arrested for cruising myself, once. I was charged by the police and appeared in court. I paid a lawyer in what today’s value would be £20,000 just to defend me and I got a conditional discharge.

I did volunteer work for the homosexual Law Reform Society which lead to working for many other groups over the years. I’d go to parliamentary debates before the 1967 decriminalisation act. Once I was in the House of Lords when the suggestion was to make the age of consent 21. One of the lords wanted to make it 70 so I threw a book at him from the gallery.

Most gay people my age are still not out. I’m a rarity. But one of the things I miss from the gay movement and scene is the camaraderie. People I know from back then have died and I find it hard to meet suitable people to sleep with or have a relationship with. I’m a bit lonely. I’d like to meet a man for something more emotional than just a friendship.

I’ve been kicked at gay discos, insulted and once told I wasn’t wanted at a pub because I’m too old. I think younger people need to be a bit more kind.”

Rather sad, what ! He's dead now, at 82. Rather unpleasant to think he was still up for anal with a younger man at that age. Anyway, just goes to show that street preachers are NOT wasting their time...

5 July 2013 at 18:04  
Blogger Peter D said...

You used the expression: "polluted by a Christian upbringing"

Then, I observed:
"The idea that somehow a Christian upbringing has a negative impact on a child's development."

And you say this:
"That's not what I actually said. Do you do this on purpose?"

Well you did actually describe a Christian upbringing as pollution, didn't you?

Here's a simple definition of the term:

" - To make unfit for or harmful to living things, especially by the addition of waste matter.

- To make less suitable for an activity, especially by the introduction of unwanted factors:

- To render impure or morally harmful; corrupt."

Do you stand by your comment that a Christian upbringing pollutes a child's upbringing?

5 July 2013 at 18:18  
Blogger Peter D said...


I think you're wrong, terribly wrong. Jesus would most certainly feed the poor body and soul of the man who's sad and lonely story you have presented.

The question is whether said person would be open to receiving such nourishment.

5 July 2013 at 19:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oh f'god'sake Dodo, just forget it. It's not worth my effort.

5 July 2013 at 19:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

You think so Peter D. ?

Jesus didn’t ask the money lenders to leave the temple, he threw them out. And he didn’t mind Peter carrying a sword. What he would have made of a gay Jew out to corrupt and sodomise Galilean male youth is anybody’s guess. It probably wouldn’t have been a pretty sight...

5 July 2013 at 19:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Back to Tony Miano's experience. He complained in his video that he was stuck in a cell for ages before his interview. I notice that the CLC sent a legal advisor over to advise him during it. Wouldn't making contact with the CLC and getting someone to come over have taken some time? With the processing at the start, the one hour wait at the end for a decision, and time to discuss the situation with the legal advisor, the seven hours is probably not that unreasonable in itself.

5 July 2013 at 19:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. It hinges on whether the supposed crime for which you have been arrested carries a gaol sentence. Ideally he should have been remanded at the nearest pub, and summonsed by phone when needed....

5 July 2013 at 19:55  
Blogger Peter D said...

Jesus was angry that His Father's House was being corrupted. In this situation, can you be confident Jesus wouldn't have transformed this chap's live? I doubt he'd have set Peter on Him with his sword! You overlooked my qualification:

"The question is whether said person would be open to receiving such nourishment."

"Oh f'god'sake Dodo, just forget it. It's not worth my effort."

I'm sure.

In the thread above you express a *liberal* willingness to share the public square with Christians. Here you deem a Christian upbringing "pollution".

5 July 2013 at 19:58  
Blogger Peter D said...

^ doubt he'd have set Peter on
him with his sword! ^

5 July 2013 at 20:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, I bet the people in the local pub having a quiet pint would have loved that.

5 July 2013 at 20:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D.

And Jesus said unto the gay Jew. “Go, sin no more”. And the gay Jew said “Yeah, sure, whatever” and then winked at the Christ. At this Jesus touched him and said “To help you on your way, I’ve just ensured you will never have an erection again”. At that, the gay Jew fell to the ground and wept. For lo, the game was up.

5 July 2013 at 20:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, wouldn’t have been any worse than the 1970s when this man was enjoying a pint and the Sally Army turned up. If you bought ‘Watch Tower’ or “Search Light” or whatever it was they were selling and held it up as if you were reading it, they left you alone. True story that...

5 July 2013 at 20:18  
Blogger Peter D said...

One hopes that the words of Jesus would have rendered a change of heart in the man. This is one of the great mysteries at the centre of our faith - the power of Grace and the recalcitrance of the reprobate.

One assumes you realise the illiberal nature of your anti-Christian comment and your silence reflects this.

5 July 2013 at 21:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D, One hopes that the words of Jesus would have rendered a change of heart in the man.

Not altogether sure you realise what rampant male homosexuality is all about, that man...

5 July 2013 at 21:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, I simply can't be arsed as it's like being in Alice Through The Looking Glass talking to you, and it's the weekend so you're wanting to cause trouble with me yet again. Do one.

5 July 2013 at 21:51  
Blogger Peter D said...

I can only counter that I'm not sure you appreciate the nature of Grace and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Please don't attempt to personalise this or develop it into something it isn't.

I've made perfectly reasonable comments. You used the term "polluted" in relation to a child's Christian upbringing. The term means unfit, harmful or corrupt.

I'm challenging that description as illiberal and anti-Christian.

5 July 2013 at 22:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

^ *

6 July 2013 at 05:18  
Blogger Peter D said...


Not much of a response, old son.

Mind you, there's really no way you can defend the slur on all those Christian families and school teachers who do their best to raise their children to love one another and to know and love God.

Pollution, indeed!

Just another throw away line. Best ignore it ... eh?

6 July 2013 at 14:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

^ *

6 July 2013 at 16:12  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

The end point of this dictatorship of the selectively offended is the banning or compulsory redaction of the bible. In my novel 'Darwin's Adders:A Chronicle of Pagan England 2089' I imagine it being replaced by a government mandated 'Rainbow Testament'.

Is there a legal right not be hear anything that offends you? Thst closes down the BBC if I have such a right!

This is tyrrany.

6 July 2013 at 18:24  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

Trying not to be offensive while asserting conviction is absurd; legislating it, is even more so. Political Correctness gave forth to Hate Speech, and until such is purged from the judicial systems of the world; you will have your socialism.

12 July 2013 at 03:46  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older