Going crackers at Christmas

It's that time of year again -- when a coalition of the ungodly and the unhinged crawls out of the woodwork to attack the greatest event in the history of the world. Christmas, chorus the atheists, humanists, relativists and PC control freaks, has no place in a multi-cultural society. It should be replaced by a secular 'Winterval' festival so that no offence would be caused to ethnic minorities.

Even when the ethnic minorities in question deny any offence is taken and actually welcome the Christian message of peace and goodwill to all men (sorry, persons), the great reformers affect not to hear. To admit that they might have got it badly wrong would be unthinkable. Hell would freeze over. You get the feeling they're infected by Dawkins-style delusions of grandeur, grasping at generous invitations from cronies at the BBC and C4 to poison the airwaves with their prejudice. (There's hope for ITV).

Such is the success enjoyed by the creepy coalition that it seems only a matter of time before the killjoys completely adulterate our most sublime religious festival. The imagination boggles. Christmas trees could be outlawed  to save the planet. Lentil roasts (Gaydian special recipe) might usurp traditional turkey to protect our health. 'Old-fashioned' carols give way to rock 'music'.Repeats of Life of Brian and Gerry Springer the Opera replace the Queen's Speech.

And sooner or later the Health and Safety Police could be relied on to ban Christmas crackers on the grounds that people might fall backwards and hurt themselves. I'm surprised they haven't thought of it already. Give them time! Meanwhile, God rest ye merry gentle people, let nothing you dismay...

Pippa's back in town...

Great news! I read in the Buckingham Palace House Journal, otherwise known as The Daily Telegraph, that Pippa Middleton has exhausted her 29th birthday celebrations in America and  returned to the UK to face the rigours of London's West End party scene. How heartening, to use the Telegraph columnist's expression, that the sister of the Duchess of Cambridge should favour us all not only with her dazzling presence but also with a book recently published in her vivid literary style on the formidable challenges facing high society party planners.

These challenges differ somewhat from those facing a growing number of families in Breadline Britian and what would be truly heartening would be if Pippa and her socialite chums were to join Delia Smith, the celebrity chef, in helping to tackle them. Just weeks after Save the Children shocked the nation by revealing that thousands of parents can no longer afford to feed their children, Delia opened a food bank in north Norfolk. It was the latest addition to a national network of such charity outlets opening in response to the pressing need caused by disgraceful changes in the benefits system.

It has been reported, not in the Telegraph I hasten to add, that in Manchester alone 42 per cent of children live below the poverty line -- double the national rate -- and that more than 40,000 youngsters in the city regularly go hungry. David Cameron has been shamed into admitting that this scandal makes a mockery of his 'Big Society' but the food banks keep opening and there is no sign of any of them closing.

However, as Pippa and her hangers-on will no doubt observe, the same applies to night clubs in the West End. As the song says: "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer...in the meantime, in between-time, ain't we got fun!"

Breakthrough cure for 'thin-skin syndrome'

Forget about global warming, population control and bird flu -- a new crisis of pandemic proportions is threatening Western civilisation. I refer to the startling dermatological discovery of 'thin-skin syndrome' among the hand-wringing PC classes. The main symptom of the disease is a compulsion to take offence for the slightest, most obscure reason. A major outbreak has now been confirmed in Brighton and Hove (where else?). The local council wants to scrap the titles Mr and Mrs because they might offend the 'transgender community', although even in Brighton there can't be that many people who don't know whether they are male or female.
 

Since there seems little hope of a cure for thin-skin syndrome in the near future, I have come up with my own remedy for sufferers: a crash course in journalism. Workshops would include many hours 'doorstepping', with doors repeatedly slammed in their faces and obscene insults shouted through letterboxes. Then they would have to toil over news reports and features to meet impossible deadlines -- only to see their work instantly spiked by ruthless sub-editors.
 

Role-playing sessions could include the PC wimps being manhandled by security staff and police officers, plus simulated riot situations involving being spat at by political extremists hurling bricks and bottles as well as insults. The result of the exercise -- apart from putting people off a thankless, underpaid career as a reporter -- would concentrate the minds of the faint-hearted on a single message: that none of it was personal.The flak was directed not at them but at what they represent -- a free Press doing its job in a democratic society.

When no personal offence is intended, none should be taken. So cut out the hand-wringing and get over it!

 

 

Heterophobia rules -- OK?

Mention the words 'same sex mariage' and the ineluctable Stephen Fry can be relied on to lend his substantial weight to the argument. In the face of growing opposition to the cringe-inducing proposal, this charmless individual (he calls real men 'pussy-bashers', heterophobia being acceptable on TV) has launched a campaign video condemning 'screeching extremists'. It's a characteristically venomous rant denouncing just about everyone who disagrees with him, in particular, of course, the Christian Church.

Central to what passes for his argument is the claim that some animal species display 'gay tendencies' but only human beings exhibit homophobia (fear of homosexuals). How deluded can you get? There is absolutely no way we fear homosexuals. It is they who are heterophobic (fearing heterosexual relationships). Sure, certain species of animals, notably dogs and pigs, exhibit gay tendencies but only when they are deprived of opportunities to mate naturally. The difference between these animals and human beings is that the latter adopt this form of behaviour from choice.

They choose to reject natural procreative -- dare one say God-given -- sexuality in favour of a perverse and dangerously unhealthy habit. Fair enough, that's a matter for them. We won't go into detail on the escalating cost to the NHS of treating the consequences. We simply believe, in our quietly screeching Christian way, that marriage is an essentially dignified institution.

In any objective analysis, a lifestyle that is clearly inconsistent with human dignity cannot qualify for inclusion.

Blessed are the thick-skinned

One of the first things you learn as a journalist, after shorthand and the vital need to spell people's names correctly, is the importance of a thick skin. You can say goodbye to popularity. Bringing into the open what the rich and powerful prefer to remain hidden inevitably makes you deeply unpopular. Ask too many awkward questions and you are likely to face rudeness, harassment, threats and worse. The most common response, of course, is the haughty 'no comment' followed by shutting the door in your face or slamming down the telephone. The most effective is to ignore you completely.

During my long and undistinguished newspaper career, colleagues would compete with each other as to which of us had been rebuffed by the most famous personalities. Some boasted they'd been slighted by pop stars, others by arrogant politicians and oafish celebrities. The best I could manage were Kenny Dalglish, who would elbow you aside if asked for an interview, Graeme Souness who'd ignore you with a supercilious sneer, and Tommy Docherty, who would simply spit on the Old Trafford boardroom carpet before treading it in with his shoe.

On reaching my 80th year, when I thought nothing could hurt any more, my rhino-like hide has been finally punctured by, of all people, the Bishop of Shrewsbury. Last year I wrote to His Grace requesting guidance on a liturgical question. I am still waiting for a reply. However, it would be wrong to say the Curia office has remained silent. I recently received a letter from them asking me for money. Ouch!

For better or perverse?

Whatever you may think about same-sex marriage you have to acknowledge our gay friends' total mastery of the PR process. For 1.5 per cent of the population (Office for National Statistics latest figure) to manipulate the remaining 98.5 per cent, including the Prime Minister, into accepting so cringe-worthy a concept is no small achievement.

The BBC and the Gaydian -- who you might say are already married in terms of a mutual relativist/atheist agenda -- should share the credit, if that's the right word. Thanks to their ongoing propaganda, homosexuals have whipped up a climate of mass hysteria in which anyone opposing their brand of unholy matrimony is labelled homophobic, hateful and worthy of social ostracism.

A Freedom of Information request some time ago revealed that the BBC placed over 90 per cent of its recruitment advertising in the Gaydian, so it's unsurprising that its staff should be heavily loaded in favour of the homosexual crusade. Of course, the Beeb indignantly denies any bias. Reading from a familiar script, a spokesman recently said: "BBC News works to the highest standards of balance and impartiality across the whole of its output. It's absolutely not true to suggest we follow any agenda." But of course. How hateful of us to suggest otherwise.

With the travesty of 'gay marriage' about to be inflicted on the nation whether we like it or not, the story of the Geordie about to emigrate springs to mind. When asked why he was leaving, he replied that 200 years ago homosexuality was punishable by death. One hundred years ago you were sent to prison for it. Now it had been made legal he was getting out before it became compulsory.

 

 

Lessons in swearing

You should hear the swearing at Shafton Advanced Learning Centre, a mixed comprehensive school in Barnsley, Yorkshire...F-words, C-words, S-words - and that's just the teachers!

According to The Daily Telegraph, the school's 700 pupils were instructed to respond to a printed list of obscenities and expletives - the sort used by professional footballers, 'edgy' comedians and bilious TV drama producers. One parent who complained said the children, aged 11 to 14, were "going mad" shouting out foul language in their classrooms.

Another angry father who complained at the school office was shocked when the head teacher phoned him later to ask what the problem was (!). You have to wonder about this individual, who has not been named. Sir Michael Wilshaw, chief inspector of Ofsted, has described head teachers as 'often quite odd people'. You couldn't get any odder than this one.

Schools have a duty of care to ensure pupils' minds are enlightened rather than polluted by irresponsible teachers. The argument has been advanced that children are exposed to swearing as part of everyday life. That's hardly a reason for repeating it on the pretext of education. Young people come into daily contact with other forms of pollution - cigarette smoke for example. But schools don't give lessons in smoking.

Bad language is a crude substitute for an inadequate vocabulary. If children can learn enough good words they will have no need of bad ones.

World Elder Abuse Awareness Day - June 15

Here's a flyer for my book, circulated for World Elder Abuse Awareness Day on June 15, 2012.

The emperor's new art

The Hayward Gallery in London is staging a ground-breaking exhibition of interest to lovers of abstract art. Entitled Invisible: Art about the Unseen 1957-2012, it features 50 'works' conspicuous by their absence. In other words, invisible. They include Andy Warhol's famous empty plinth, a blank piece of paper supposedly stared at repeatedly over five years by Tom Friedman, a canvas of invisible ink and something called a 'hidden labyrinth'.

Members of the public are charged £8 to 'view' these priceless masterpieces in what the gallery describes as an experience 'to set our imaginations alight' with 'plenty to see and experience'. While presumably keeping a straight face, the Hayward's director, Ralph Rugoff, helpfully explained: 'Art isn't about material objects, it's about setting our imaginations alight' - thus overturning a definition enjoying universal acceptance for several thousand years. 

My own imagination tells me that the moment gullible punters' backs are turned, staff at the gallery all fall about laughing. The following paragraph is my considered appraisal of the exhibition. It may appear a blank space to you but it is actually rich in hidden meaning. Use your imagination and some rather naughty and unprintable words may suggest themselves.








See what I mean!

Battle for the man in the street

As the battle for hearts and minds intensifies in the euthanasia debate, one signal sounds loud and clear above the noise of conflict:  our troops in the pro-life camp are losing. The pro-death battalions have captured the high immoral ground. Public opinion surveys consistently indicate  that around three-quarters of those polled favour assisted suicide, mercy killing, medical aid in dying or other euphemisms for euthanasia dreamed up by the enemy.

The masses are not getting the pro-life message. They have been persuaded through subtle brainwashing by an acquiescent media that a 'right to die' based on individual autonomy transcends the right to life - a self-evidently absurd proposition but one that has taken root in the public mind. Let's consider two practical problems arising from this misconception. The first concerns life insurance. To my knowledge, all insurance companies exclude suicide from their life cover. Assisted suicide is still suicide. Beneficiaries of a deceased's estate hoping to profit from his death would therefore be sadly disappointed.

You could possibly argue that the person who assisted the suicide was technically guilty of murder, thereby relieving the deceased of ultimate responsibility. But the obvious defence to this charge would be that the deceased asked his assistant to kill him. Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument offers a splendid defence in a wide spectrum of murder cases, viz: "The victim asked me to kill him. I merely complied with his legal right to die by doing so." As the victim would no longer be around to deny making any such request, the likely outcome would be acquittal. Next case please.

These are valid arguments against popular notions of a right to die and assisted death but you are unlikely to encounter them in the media. The reason, it seems to me, is that the pro-life movement is not militant enough. What it needs is a PR campaign to rival that of the 'gay rights' fraternity - a tiny minority (1.5 per cent of the population according to latest statistics) that has exerted an influence on society out of all proportion to its size.

Similar determination is urgently needed by our own much larger minority group because the issue here is not just sexual orientation but a matter of life and death. A slogan is called for, a rallying cry to inspire a generation increasingly regarded as expendable. Keep Breathing, the title of my second novel, could strike the necessary chord.

My book is an attempt to promote the pro-life message to a largely hostile public through the medium of popular fiction, something that does not seem to have been tried before. You could call it a form of ideological evangelism...an attempt to engage the man in the street on an emotional rather than intellectual level. I am convinced that for the pro-life message to prevail, public attitudes must change. We may have lost the present PR battle but it is vital for the sake of future generations that we win the war.

Sinister or sick?

People described as 'medical ethics experts' have gone on record as claiming that newborn babies have no right to life. Writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics, they argue: "The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a foetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life."

To be sure we are in no doubt about the chilling nature of their convoluted message, Alberto Ciubilini and Francesca Minerva, add: "What we call 'after-birth abortion' (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is - including cases where the newborn is not disabled." (my italics) To these primitive ethicists, infanticide is therefore fine. It adds a new dimension to the euphemism of 'pro-choice' - now you can choose whether to kill your baby before or after birth.

What is the 'moral status' of these sociopaths, preoccupied with snuffing out human life rather than protecting it? Not all that elevated, it would seem. Their comments have reportedly received a hostile response from several quarters. Curiously, the reaction has upset the journal's editor, Julian Savulescu. He describes the critics as "opposing the values of a liberal society" by indulging in "witch ethics".

How cynical can you get? What we are dealing with here are not the values of a civilised society but those of an abortion-obsessed culture. The death-wish fanatics who constantly seek to widen its boundaries would be regarded as deeply sinister if they were not so desperately sick.

Hallelujah!

GEORGE CAREY, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has just noticed that Christianity is facing 'gradual marginalisation'. (Cue double-forte rendition of the Hallelujah Chorus by massed Albert Hall choirs.) Plugging his book, We Don't Do God, he announces: "There are forces at work in Western society hollowing out the values of Christianity and driving them to the margins."

Now you tell us, George! It's a pity you didn't detect these dark forces several years ago when they were blindingly obvious to the rest of us. For example, when the BBC was poisoning the airwaves with Gerry Springer - the Opera and similar works of 'artistic expression'. Since then, due mainly to your church's misplaced policy of appeasing secularism, it's been downhill all the way.

The National Secular Society, the BBC and the Gaydian newspaper are now calling the shots. Prayers have been banned at council meetings; Christian adoption agencies have been forced to close; medical staff face dismissal for shunning abortions; nurses who wear crosses (that hated symbol for atheists) and pray for patients are victimised... the persecution intensifies with each perverse judgment handed down by a secular judiciary. Marginalisation has given way to a crusade against religious belief.

Much of this might have been prevented if George and his flock had not been obsessed with gender equality and homosexual rights but focused instead on their prime duty of upholding the Christian faith. Now what remains of the Anglican Church, under the leadership of an equally weak cartoon character, is left with a mountain to climb. Still, it's good you've finally seen the light George. Better late than never.

Keep breathing and carry on

A fanatical pressure group wants to change the law on assisted dying - making it easier for doctors to help patients kill themselves. Parliament has rejected any change three times since 2006 out of concern for public safety. The Council of Europe has ruled that euthanasia and assisted suicide should be banned throughout Britain and the Continent. They are supported by the British Medical Association and the European Convention on Human Rights.

But the multi-millionaires backing the pressure group think they know better. They quote opinion polls claiming that three-quarters of the British public favour assisted suicide. These simplistic surveys are basically flawed. They make no mention of sinister developments in countries where assisted death has been legalised. In Holland, for example, the 'service' has been extended from the terminally ill to include healthy people.

At a time when the national deficit exceeds £1 trillion (that's £1,000,000,000,000) and mature citizens are increasingly regarded as a burden on society, euthanasia as an instrument of socio-economic policy presents a frightening scenario. The pro-death pressure group comprises powerful, determined and ideology-driven activists. They are not going to go away.

My novel, KEEP BREATHING, predicts that legalising assisted death would result in full-blown elder abuse and that this irreversible nightmare could happen sooner than we think. We live in an age when the human rights of terrorists, murderers and even war criminals are protected. What about ours?

KEEP BREATHING  Available in paperback from Amazon, £8.99 post free. Ebook on
Kindle £2.90. Keep calm, carry on and order now - while you still can!