Tuesday, 5 March 2013

The End of Free Speech?

Reverend Brian Ross

You may have read the story that a police chaplain, Reverend Brian Ross, has had to leave his post. He made comments on his blog stating that he was against gay marriage. This is why police bloggers are anonymous. In the politically correct infested world of the police and public sector, having opinions that contradict the Orwellian equality policies means state persecution and dismissal.

Regular readers will know how I hate our current state of Liberalism. This notion that is is bringing about more freedoms and less state control is ludicrous. Liberalism has brought about a society where no one has any responsibility for themselves. Self control and accountability has almost disappeared resulting in erosion of freedoms . Most concerning though is the erosion of freedom of speech.

We now have three political parties who are almost indiscernible. Nu Labour moved the Labour party firmly to the centre, waving goodbye to the loony left. Blair and Brown spent us into massive debts to try and buy votes from their grass roots. Truth is the Labour elite actually hate their supporters as we found when Brown was caught labelling Gillian Duffy as a bigot. Cameron has jumped on the same bandwagon. He believes that to become electable he has to move the Conservative Party to the centre and he despises the traditional Conservative vote. The problem for Cameron is that the intolerant centrists hate him. He is despised as a privately educated toff and will never be accepted by the liberal classes.

This takes me back to the story of Reverend Brian Ross. Our liberal society has become so intolerant that anyone whose views differ from theirs are abused and treated as sub human. Pink News actually did a very balanced story regarding Reverend Ross. But if you look at the comments it is a different matter. 'Good riddance.' 'Bigot.' 'Bollocks.'

I don't agree with gay marriage. I don't believe the Government has the right to change the Oxford English Dictionary definition. I have no religious shackles and I believe that the churches opinions on the matter are largely unhelpful. I believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman with the ambition of producing children. I don't have a problem with gays or gay relationships. I support civil partnerships. I am of the view that as gay relationships cannot produce children without the involvement of a third party then they are different and cannot be a marriage. I don't care if gay couples relationships are blessed in church or anywhere else. I don't care what their relationship is called but it is not a marriage. There are good reasons why that difference should be maintained.

Some people will say that my views make me a homophobic bigot. I am genuinely bewildered by this. The sad thing is that if I publicly stated those views as a serving police officer I would likely be sacked.

This is a very dangerous path. To me it seems no different to Nazi Germany. We all know the old story where they came for the Communists and the Jews first, and everyone else did nothing because they were neither of these things. Then there was nobody left to protest.

Liberalism, rather than creating a country of understanding and respect has created a country of blandness and intolerance. Characters with opinions outside of liberal tolerances are eradicated from the public sector and vilified elsewhere. The police are questioning people for opinions that allegedly cause others alarm or distress. People have been prosecuted for their 'non conformist' opinions. The situation is getting worse all the time. How long will it be before people are sent to re-education camps, imprisoned, tortured or executed for their non liberal views?


  1. I've found most liberals are good...........................................................................................as long as you agree with them. If you don't, then you must be some kind of anasshole.

  2. As much as they maintain any critic of theirs must be deranged, police bloggers are equally delusional in the matter of their 'anonymity' which proxy servers and other reputed 'technical safeguards' cannot preserve.

  3. melv - I am well aware that it is not difficult to identify bloggers through servers although, if I was that bothered, I could make it very difficult.
    Anyone who does identify a police blogger had better do it lawfully with good reason or it will cost them: Remember Knightjack?
    Having said that you and Rehill haven't done very well identifying Gadget have you?
    Anything to say relevant to the post?

  4. Anonymity on police blogs is due to cowardice. Read them and point to one that does not show council tenants as scum, blacks as scum indeed anyone except plod as vermin truth is it is all re-ified canteen culture - you know how hated you are (by everyone not just criminals) Now to Labour - Blair/Br*wn/Miliband are the best pals you have. Nighjack (Horton) was a c**t. Sgt Kevin Edney is a Sussex cop who writes bad blogs as Gadget. He was outed ages ago by Broxted! Finally I really want some Montana real estate any ads? A Luta Continua VIVA CHAVEZ!!

  5. "Self control and accountability has almost disappeared resulting in erosion of freedoms ." In my personal opinion you can add political correctness. If it "hurts someone's feelings" you can bet it is politically incorrect. Not to mention the world, as a whole, has become all about me, me, me. No offense to a deck of cards, but I still call a spade a spade, and I don't care what color, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion you are. I am sick to death of people telling me what words I can and can not use.

  6. An excellent post!
    As to police bloggers' anonymity;I'm afraid they have no option, though it is somewhat ironic that it is they who wholeheartedly jump on anybody who dares to voice a non-PC comment! Perhaps, As ye sow, so shall ye reap!

  7. Rehill - calm down and take your medication.
    You have completely failed to identify Gadget. I know this must be upsetting when melv tells you it should be easy, but you will just have to learn to live with yourself.
    I can help you with Montana Real estate. Try this link. ;-) http://www.montanarealestate.com/

    Anything constructive to add to the debate?
    Up the revolution!

  8. "Remember Knightjack?"

    My memories of Nightjack are obviously less confused and presumably fonder than your own, lex.

  9. melv - nothing relevant to contribute to the debate, as usual.

  10. Applause contributes to the debate, lex. However I do appear to have mistaken "Remember Knightjack?" for parody of "Remember Magna 'Carter'. Did she die in vain?"

    I must bear in mind your embarrassment to be credited with the wit for intentional mockery.

  11. I don't agree with gay marriage.
    Then you are a bigot. There is no qualitative difference between opposing gay marriage and opposing interracial marriage.
    I believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman with the ambition of producing children.
    So infertile couples and couples who choose not to have children should not get married?
    You must love the underclass; they procreate with wanton abandon, and you say that is the purpose of marriage...
    I support civil partnerships. I am of the view that as gay relationships cannot produce children without the involvement of a third party then they are different and cannot be a marriage.
    And there you go again. So I'm not truly married because I don't have children? Are you serious?!
    As to civil partnerships, we've all seen how "separate but equal" works (although civil partnerships are not equal; as a Brit, if you marry an American you get a US green card; if you enter into a civil partnership with an American, you don't. It also means I can marry a Japanese woman and enter into a civil partnership with a British man, and commit bigamy. But maybe you're OK with that...), but I suppose signs on public toilets reading "Whites only" is somehow different to you from signs reading "straights only".
    You are a bigot. Go dwell on polishing the facets of your personality for a while, because you cannot be trusted as a police officer. Your homophobia is no different from racism, and must be purged from any modern police force.

  12. Kimpatsu,

    oh dear.

    Personally I DO agree with gay marriage but I entirely see the points Lex is making.

    I see your points too- especially about infertile couples etc

    Any stance one makes on this issue, has flaws, if viewed from certain angles.

    True enough for all stances on nearly all issues really.

    But Im afraid you inadvertently make Lex's point better than he did- you have encapsulated the thrust of his argument rather neatly.

    Could it be your passion on the topic has allowed you to become a little bigoted yourself?

  13. melv, still nothing relevant then.

    Kimpatsu - you epitomise the problem I have outlined. I oppose gay marriage and so I am a homophobic bigot. How tolerant and understanding of you. Your arguments to support your abuse do not stand up.

    ‘There is no qualitative difference between opposing gay marriage and opposing interracial marriage.’
    Let’s throw in the race card as well. If I oppose gay marriage I must be a racist too. Pathetic poppycock! Race is completely irrelevant to this argument and the allegation undermines your credibility and argument.

    ‘So infertile couples and couples who choose not to have children should not get married?’
    If couples cannot have children because of infertility then for many that is devastating. It doesn't change the meaning of marriage. Same sex couples know they can never have children. It is a different relationship and that is the whole point. There are exceptional couples who chose not to have children or older couples past childbearing years, but that doesn’t change the meaning of marriage either.

    'So I'm not truly married because I don't have children?'
    That isn’t what I said at all. I said that if you are in a single sex relationship that relationship can never produce children without a third party. That is a difference which should be recognised and the relationship should never be a marriage. I also said that I don’t care what you call the relationship. I support you having exactly the same rights in law as a married couple. E.g. your green card in America Etc. But, call it anything but marriage, because it isn’t.

    The next step in this debacle is state sponsored deception. You will know that in some countries the law has been changed so that same sex couples are shown as the birth parents of their children. Why should records have to lie to appease?

    Happy Progenitor B Day!

  14. This is where we disagree. I don't believe marriage is about producing children, although it can help in the establishment of a good environment in which to raise them.

    If you take children out of the picture, I don't then see why there should be civil partnerships for gay people and marriage for straight people. Thus I support same-sex marriage. I also support civil partnerships for heterosexual couples, although I believe it would be more sensible to just have marriage I'm aware some people feel rather strongly about wanting some kind of non-marriage commitment (there are straight couples campaigning to get civil partnerships).

    What I will not do is call you homophobic or a bigot. You've explained why you don't agree with gay marriage and your reasons are far more rational than anybody else I've heard because they stem from your understanding of marriage and you've managed to articulate them without pulling in some kind of homophobic slur on the side.

    This is something that many politicians and bishops have completely failed to do.

    Oh and I agree with you about Cameron. We liberals will never accept him because he isn't a liberal. The same-sex marriage bill is a remarkable abberration in his policies, and while I welcome it I struggle to think of anything else this government have done which I approve of.

  15. "melv, still nothing relevant then."

    You know how picky I am, lex. Any subtle bait, perchance?

  16. Lex as soon as someone shouts racist, homophobe, sexist etc etc the argument is over.
    Liberals only believe in free speech if you agree with them as has been demonstrated on here numerous times by Melvin and his mates.

  17. So hetrosexual relationships that cannot or do not result in children can't be called a marriage?

  18. You got your batty kicked over Alfie Meadows. Jah!

  19. Learned Council11 March, 2013 20:14

    If you had a clue Rehill, a clue about anything, you would understand that to get the CPS to run three trials against an alleged violent thug requires substantial evidence. It was all there on video. He got off it because the jury felt sorry for him.
    Where is the evidence that he was struck by a police baton? There isn't any. He almost certainly got hit with a brick thrown by one of his own thugs. If you had any balls you might have been there and been responsible yourself.
    He got what he deserved. Shame he didn't get 2 years porridge to go with it.
    With no evidence to support his allegation but plenty to show he was guilty of violent disorder, good luck with his claim against the police.

  20. O/T

    Gadget was a dismal blogger and a liar to boot. How magically Twainesque that her obituary was the one destined to provide a pleasant read.

    Pork scratchings, anyone?

  21. Let's try and keep this simple. The vast majority of men and women get married and have children. Most of them can do so.
    I happen to believe that marriage is the relationship between a man and a woman.
    I have no religious views. I do not believe that homosexuals are perverts or aberrations who face the wrath of God.
    I believe that homosexuality is perfectly normal and occurs in the animal kingdom in numerous species including our own.
    I want homosexuals to have exactly the same rights as heterosexual married couples. I just don't want single sex relationships to be called a marriage. I want it called something else because it is not the same. Use another word as the word gay has been used. Invent another word for it.
    I can understand that people will not agree with me and I don't mind that. The point of my post was that slavering liberals and the thought police in the public sector will denounce and sack a police officer for my opinion.
    On cue up pops Kimpatsu labelling me a homophobic bigot who is probably a racist as well. I hope he has had time to reflect on the irony of his rant.
    What sort of society are we living in that will take someones job for having an opinion that differs from their own? Where is this leading?

  22. Still laughing over cyber demise of Gadget/Edney.

  23. Broxted you can only dream of Gadgets popularity and as usual you lefty/liberals only believe in free speech when someone agrees with you.
    Give it a few days and you will claim to have closed the blog down yourself.You are that sad and delusional.
    PS Apparently there's someone in Norfolk who may be a nonce,why don't you report him?

  24. Learned Council12 March, 2013 22:36

    Rehill - I'm still laughing about the fact you really think it is Edney. You have no idea who Gadget is.
    Jaded - spot on

  25. OMG, just logged onto the nutters blog (after it had gone missing for days) and he really is claiming to have closed Gadget down.
    Insane but so so predictable.

  26. Lol...so this is where Melv and his mate Redface have got to after being booted off my blog...for being silly.

    Freedom of speech, like all things must be tempered with responsibility.

    As to marriage gay or whatever...up to 10,000 years ago the 4.5 billion year old planet we are currently leasing, had no real need for such silliness.

    It's a construct...a human construct...and as such can be changed. No god given (no matter which god you support) right exists for any single person to force this artificial rubbish upon the rest of us.

    It's just silly.

    As to Redhill calling bloggers cowards...lol this from a man that has never even lifted a finger to help a single human being... he is a troll...a silly one too...

    Melv...is a troll too...but...does occasionally contribute some interesting thoughts - I banned him but he could still contribute...if only he could stop his mouth running...