Gender issues

Baroness Deech

Some interesting issues about gender have been discussed this week.  First, the Royal Succession. I will not spend long on the (rushed) bill that will enable the first born child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, whether male or female, to succeed.  I am sure it is a good thing that the oldest child of the King or Queen  should become King or Queen, and we have done very well with our Queens.  But it does raise a host of other issues, which were given short shrift in the Commons debate.  Gender equality in the monarchy and elsewhere is to be welcomed, but it must follow that the transmission of other titles will have to be considered.  Even if you think that titles are not worth bothering about these days, they exist, have importance for many and, arguably, help to sustain the monarchical system.  So surely the oldest child of a titled person should inherit the title and the property, if any, that goes with it. And my persistent complaint – why does the husband of a woman peer get inferior treatment to the wife of a peer?

Second, Tax relief on childcare. Of course, either sex may require childcare, but it is mainly a female issue. Where I mention women in this comment, please apply it to men as well and vice versa. (Bloggers – if you think that all women should stay at home with their children, have you considered that the father should do so?) It was suggested that there might, at last, be tax relief on childcare costs.  This would be of immense benefit to those women who calculate that they cannot afford to go back to work because child care costs would consume their salary.  It would also be of enormous assistance to women professionals, especially doctors and nurses, who spend long years training, whose presence in the hospital and surgery is desperately needed, and who are held back from giving their full time attention to patients because of limited childcare. More women than men now train as doctors, and we cannot afford to lose them, which we do, because they cannot find or afford childcare.  This is so obvious, yet the LibDems have put the boot in, and it is reported that Nick Clegg will not allow this sensible reform to go forward because it would help higher earners.  It would help everyone, actually, including those who might benefit from the increased presence of doctors at work.  Our child care costs are amongst the highest in the world, our childcare redtape is the worst, and many women are desperate to use their education and talents in the workplace, to help sustain their families and their mortgages, but are being needlessly held back.  There really ought to be a massive protest about this iniquity.

If a man is self employed, he can claim as a business allowance the salary he pays to his secretary.  If a woman employs a childcarer, why can she not claim the salary as an allowance? The secretary is regarded in tax law as necessary and exclusive to the business, but we all know that the job is more wide ranging and personal than that; the childcarer is every bit as, probably more essential to the working capacity of the woman at work. I guess that if mothers at work were allowed to choose between having a secretary or a childcarer, many would go for the latter.

Third, gay marriage. One of the grounds for divorce in a heterosexual marriage is adultery.  The newly-published Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill applies the same divorce grounds to same sex marriage but specifies that adultery is to  be defined as conduct only with a member of the opposite sex and not the same sex! So intimacy between a married gay person and another person of the same sex would not count as adultery. But intimacy with a person of the opposite sex does. What are we to make of that?

21 comments for “Gender issues

  1. Lord Blagger
    25/01/2013 at 4:25 pm

    But intimacy with a person of the opposite sex does. What are we to make of that?

    ===========

    That you couldn’t organise a p**s up in a Brewery.

    It just shows how inept you are a making laws.

    Here’s a suggestion. The government gets out of the marriage business completely. Now what? Catholics can have catholic marriage contracts. Gays can have gay marriage contracts. Very quickly you will get different, but standardised contracts. End of problem.

    On the child benefit front. It’s down to the 7,000 bn debt that you’ve run up. It’s down to a 30% annual overspend too. The state is desperate for cash. Cameron is begging business to hand over their cash and not take their football away. So its get the cash from anywhere, no matter what the damage. Have to postpone the inevitable. The complete bankruptcy of the state because of people like you, including you, complete inability to be fiscally continent.

    The biggest cost the women and men face is you. You take 50% of their money.

  2. 25/01/2013 at 4:46 pm

    Why not allow tax relief but limit it to the basic rate? That would avoid it helping the high earners disproportionately.

    Perhaps we should start talking about what the parents (plural) should receive to help them support a child, rather than “women” or “men”. Taking both parents’ income into account would have made the child benefit changes much fairer when there are two moderately high earners in the household.

    Finally, it’s slightly off-topic, but it’s a disgrace that despite gay marriage being introduced in the name of equality (which I agree with) civil partnerships will continue for gay people only. Either they should be scrapped or opened up to everyone. Denying civil partnerships to heterosexual couples is just as iniquitous as denying marriage to gay people.

  3. MilesJSD
    25/01/2013 at 5:43 pm

    “What are we to make of it ?”

    Baroness, it all depends on what you mean by “we”:
    “we” divides into
    (1) the “above-the-majority-of-people” -
    a) Royalty
    b) The British Upper-Class
    c) The British Establishment
    4) The Super-Wealthy Private Individual Capitalists & Captains-of-Industry’
    5) The Civil Servants Sector
    6) The Parliamentary sector
    7) The Judiciary
    8) The Higher Professions (Medical, Law, Academia)
    9) The Middle-Class university-trained ‘decent jobs’ millions of special workers.
    10) The Media sector

    All of whom being ‘better’ human-beings than those tens of millions lower-down, “need” to have at least two-human-livings each per week (£300) – [but in the case of the "best" human-beings, they desperately "need" £30,000 per week, each]

    - whereas those millions of lesser-’educated’ and ‘less-efficient’ human-beings can live adequately off half-a-human-living each per week (£143).

    ======
    The rulers who are dictating that “adultery outside of the Marriage Contractual and Covenantal Relationship with a third person of the same sex as the second person marriage partner is no longer to be counted as adultery”
    are probably of the same Insanity-Root,
    as those above who conflate “civilisational workplace efficiency” with “personal efficiency and human-prowess in the Lifeplace, at utilising and sharing Earthlife sustainworthily”.
    ———–
    Surely “marital cheating depends on genders” ‘reasoning’ or ‘heartfelt-moralising’ exudes from the same corrupted one-eyed and insane root that figures “making £10 million ‘paper-money-profit’ in the workplace “entitles me” to at least £1 million’s worth of luxury “rewards”.
    =====

    And there is sure to be more (and worsely more !) to be “made –
    of ‘It’”.

  4. maude elwes
    26/01/2013 at 8:17 am

    @Baroness Deech:

    Royal succession on gender basis is neither here nor there to the general public as the establishment runs the show anyway. If a Queen marries a pushy guy who has his heart set on rule, like any other spouse of this ilk, he will demand she follows his line. Take the demands of domineering Royal Princesses who take to beating their spouse in public. Do you feel they would be less demanding in private? I would think they would not. So, reality is, male or female is irrelevant.

    However, whether either is acceptable to the public depends on their ability to play the expected role with a wonderful personality. Look at some of the present Royal princesses. All the fake press releases in the world cannot manufacture charisma or encourage respect, no matter how they go at it.

    Now, if we consider the real meaning of equality we have to look at it in the round. If a monarch has four children, equality would mean each of them becomes the ruling king or queen. That is only fair. The family spoils should then be equally divided. Why should one offspring grab the lot as in winner takes all. That has to be seen as decidedly unfair. Not equal on any level, is it? The idea of first born inheritance being far in excess of the siblings is totally unacceptable in todays world. It is inherently an unequal concept. As is the notion of dynasty. However, if we wish to be a truly equal society then we should all be kings and queens. Or, not at all. There is no logic in any of this.

    Tax relief on childcare. The entire tax system is another illogical concept. The old idea of tax relief if you have children or dependents, reagardless of gender, has to be the most acceptable notion. This idea that women are a special group, other than in their role as mother, takes the concept of nature to an impossibly complicated level. Social engineering, which is what this is, cannot hide the fact that the ‘majority’ of women will use any excuse not to have to leave their child in order to take up full time employment. And playing this game of, they can’t, wont or will not, because of the ‘cost’ of childcare is a nonsense.

    Those you cite in careers of the mind will find a way to pay for someone to mind their offspring as they always have, regardless of their tax relief. As they cannot abide domesticity. They are the non maternal bunch of women who have children for other reasons than the fulfilment of family life. There is no family life when a mother abandons her children to the care of an inferior being to raise her issue without them. Whilst she takes on endless hours of ‘work’ elsewhere. End of story.

    Governments of all colours have, for decades, denigrated the role of the parent who enjoys family life by caring for their beloved offspring themselves. Hands on motherhood is ridiculed or spurned and now represents the inept or the mindless woman. No matter the natural and overwhelming desire for the majority of societies mothers to nurture, being a predominant requirement toward their emotional fulfilment. The pressure of politics to lean on women relentlessly to take on the ‘masculine psyche’ is very close to inhumane cruelty on a level previoulsy not witnessed. Which leads to a detriment of both mother and child, and further, creates an ever increasing lack of worthiness in the father, who bears a sense of responsibility, for not being able to ‘earn’ enough to prevent the despair he witnesses as a result. To pretend otherwise is duplicitous in the extreme.

    Gay marriage: What an extraordinary idea that adultery takes place only with the opposite sex. What a farce. The expectation that a gay partner is going to commit adultery ‘only’ by having sex with someone of the opposite gender (the humour in this makes a mockery of the entire concept) when their proclivity is same sex liasons, is simply a way law is looking to excuse same sex partnerships from a vow of fidelity. I wonder why that is? This shows how flawed this whole concept is and how those proposing it have no idea of what they are doing.

    There cannot be a marriage, in terms of what marriage really means in our society, between two people of the same sex. There can be a partnership, or a commitment to a concept of marriage, but, it will never be marriage in the true sense. As matrimony can only take place between a man and a woman. Therefore, can gay couples commit adultery? That is the question isn’t it? They can be ‘unfaithful’ to the partner whom they promised would be their one and only as adultery, in its true meaning, is simply infidelity and that can take place between any human being or animal come to that. To play away at all, is not being honest to the one you pledged your sexual allegiance to. Therefore, adultery is commited by any spouse who plays sexually elswhere.

    Or, you can take the view of, Arnie Schwarzenegger, when caught in sexual play with a female not his spouse, ‘eating isn’t cheating’ he said, or, go for a touch of, Bill Clinton, with his, ‘I did not have have sexual relations with that women.’

  5. Gareth Huw Howell
    27/01/2013 at 9:48 am

    but it must follow that the transmission of other titles will have to be considered…………… surely the oldest child of a titled person should inherit the title and the property, if any, that goes with it.

    Primogeniture is far from the only method of inheritance. Unlike the vast owneroccupier democracy of post Thatcher years, most of the ancient and large landholdings are unregistered, and subject to Trust deeds of 100-200 years ago, or more. That applies also to non-titled squirearchy and to baronetcies, especially baronetcies.

    It would be well nigh impossible to compel them to change their ways, short of Robespierre.
    Tanist law, self selection by vote, is a good way of doing it; or general consensus!

    On the subject of equality of tax law, between the genders; the law has evolved whilst always considering the family unit,
    which is surely why the secretary/childcarer differences are as they are. Long may they remain so.

  6. Senex
    28/01/2013 at 2:13 pm

    On Royal Succession: Its clear the Prime Minister and cabinet expect automatic royal assent to be given to any bill presented and have opposed the now published Pamphlet on Royal consent. Why?

    Its because they are the court of a lesser king in a Potwalloper elective dictatorship whose authority sits on the back of universal suffrage; an authority that like the republics has a moral compass that derives not from faith but from a society that cherishes a summer evening spent in Magaluf or Las Vegas.

    On Tax Relief and Childcare: this is political ambition from a Lady who spends most of her time at home. The blogs prospectus for an indirectly elected house allows her to pursue political ambition by declining a writ of summons and accepting instead a writ of election to stand as an MP or failing this to retire from Parliament. Put it in your manifesto?

    On Gay Marriage: this morally corrupt government now wishes to protect the dominion of death and extinction in a marriage that is incapable of creating a life. God can only exist that he lives within each and every one of us. But why does he impose monogamy when polygamy would best suit something that is absolutely pointless. After all there are no children to protect.

    Ref: Pamphlet on Royal consent legislation published
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pamphlet-on-royal-consent-legislation-published-8452548.html

    • maude elwes
      28/01/2013 at 3:53 pm

      @Senex:

      Could this dilemna be top of the agenda in gay partnerships as a result of children being bought from females who sell their womb or men who sell their sperm for hire? No matter to whom. Isn’t that one of the reasons surrogacy in this country refused the idea of financial gain to women who took on the role of mother, so that any offspring would not be considered sold into a twisted form of slavery?

      Isn’t it now lawful to place in the box marked ‘mother’ in gay relationships, a man name? And by so doing creating a confusion so profound in any childs mind as to instill in him/her an immaculate conception? Beyond any we have so far made up?

      This surely has to be similar to the selling of a cabbage patch doll where you get withit a birth certificate and fill in the name of the parents yourself. But even in this this area of play it is called an adoption. Not presented as reality to the players.

      There are serious issues in every part of this game, and one would need the wisdom of Solomon to overcome the pitfalls and madness it is possible to create in such an utterly selfish practice.

      This is similar to being born stateless, only worse, growing up being told, by those you trust the most, you came about without a physical mother but two fathers who created you, or, the other way around, two mothers no father. You simply were conceived through our joint bank account.

      • Lord Blagger
        28/01/2013 at 6:28 pm

        It’s only really a problem for the state. Their aim is all around who they send the bill to for the child.

        So since you can have a couple, using a donated egg (one mother), donated genetic material (second mother), in a surrogate (third mother), sperm donor (father), to the mother (4th) and father (second), the state has a problem.

        A child with 4 mothers and 2 fathers.

        • 29/01/2013 at 3:27 pm

          Lord Blagger: perhaps the State should bill all of them, and gain three times the revenue in the process. The extra could be used to pay for an increase in peers’ allowances!

          • Lord Blagger
            29/01/2013 at 6:27 pm

            Its certainly the current approach.

            e.g Taxation solves all ills, including syphilis and the King’s itch.

            It just shows why Peers, and one in particular is big on reproduction, Warner, are completely barmy trying to legislate. Just ask the question, would they impose the same on people having a bunk up in the back of a cab, as they impose on people using IVF? They would be laughed at.

            Mind you, I had someone suggest in all seriousness that the state should book future earnings of you and I as an asset, in an attempt to balance the books. e.g. The state owns you. Relevant to this is that the state already runs a stud book on our breeding. So did the slave owners of the past.

            It’s all starting to come to a head. France had a minister let the cat out of the bag. They are bankrupt.

  7. maude elwes
    30/01/2013 at 11:28 am

    It occurs to me, Blagger, that what they should be centering on is worrying about in breeding in the country. It is said that the largest birth rate here is via families who were born outside of the UK. Now why is that?

    Could it be the British indigenous people are too poor to dare to have children? Whilst those who come from elsewhere see their standard of living here as so high, compared to the land of their birth, they can afford to have a brood. And then, there are those who go back home for cheap surrogacy, as they want only sons. Which, in turn will bring about a population of imbalanced gender as well as genetic inbreeding, akin to those in Deliverance.

    The US mountain folk are inbred in the extreme. Still, as you can see, it does have an upside, great banjo players.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEhwIqmmEJY

    What a Great Britain we have, and so many of those who brought it about are really proud of what they produced for us. They profess on the raio talk shows, a propensity for more of the same.

    What will this next set of social engineering produce, I wonder? Beethoven?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fQG4CcoRuM

    Not according the the view P. Charles has of our education system.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/royalfamilyvideo/8286450/Prince-Charles-Pommy-insults-built-character.html#

    They continue to fiddle whilst Rome burns.

    • Lord Blagger
      30/01/2013 at 1:41 pm

      and? I don’t care about anyone’s race.

      What I care about is when we have migrants, who are optional, who pay less in tax than the government spends per person. That’s the simple test, should they be allowed in, or should they be allowed to stay.

      It’s an approximation, because clearly some will consume less government resources than the average per head spend, but its a pretty clear test.

      • maude elwes
        31/01/2013 at 11:11 am

        Here we go again with the race card. This obsession with the genetic make up of the various groups is quite insane. It creates this hysteria that implies and rules with the notion that a criminal offence with one group is not an offece when carried out by another. As in the case with the Pakistani Muslim man of eighteen who groomed a thirteen year old, non Muslim girl, here on the internet, then, premeditatedly, set up a hotel room for her to be molested and raped by him. The Judge, in this case, decided this man had been brainwashed by his maddrasah school thriving here in the UK, into believing girls or women were lollipops to be thrown away at will. So as a result he was spared any prison sentence another man would have had to do up to seven years for. Mind you he didn’t pick on a girl of his own ‘race’ because honour killing would have been involved, so the maddrasah taught him those ‘racial’ practices are a way to stay out of the nick in this chosen land of equality.

        When I speak of immigration it is the ‘number’ of people entering this country at an alarming rate, (the race is irrelevant, as they are of all races) a quarter of a million a year minimum. Yet you mention race not ‘quantity.’ Now why is that? Especially as you are so fixated on welfare payouts to those in receipt.

        And why you chose to use the word race is because of alarm over the massive and varied cultures of those entering at such a level changing the society we live in. And in a way that if it continues we will have lives that resembles the most backward in the world. Or, be like the Americns and have to set up gated communities to separate us from the threats of war against war our own culture.

        This is where you should be worrying, not on the perception of race. That guy was a racist, the judge was a racist, and the reason I write that is, the Judges duty of care was not toward the non Muslim child this man raped, but toward the worry that his rightful judgement may be seen as wrongly racist if he gave this demon a sentence in line withour culture. So,rather than a fight against the takeover of our society by strange and diverse cultures that cannot fit in with the present Western system. How can they when some believe women must be thrown to the ground like a dirty lollipop sticks and another group describe children are witches who should be dismembered. This Judge chose a racist disregard of the young girl he should have been defending in order to defend the culture of a man wrongly educated.

        Suicidal is what people with your bent are. Indiginous British are well on the way to the fate of the native American Indian. Except, somehow, those who are the indigenous of this country, have been pursuaded to collude in their own genocide. Unlike those native Indians.

        Great future for us all if you are asking to run the country.

        • Lord Blagger
          01/02/2013 at 11:11 am

          1. I’ve no doubt that this rapist is scum, and I would personally lock him up for a long time, in the same cell as the judge. Let the two of them rot together.

          However, on migration. The main problem is low skilled low wage migration. You aren’t going to get many high skilled migrants from Pakistan, although I’ve worked for a couple of people who would qualify. The aren’t working in a kebab shop by the way. They are more western than you can imagine. The UK gains from them being here, financially and otherwise. [Pakistan loses]

          However, if you get in people who are working in Starbucks, then we lose in lots of ways. We have to fund medical care, housing, schooling, pensions for the migrants, because their tax doesn’t cover it. We also have to fund the people who aren’t working because they won’t get a job and exist on benefits. How many times do you hear, there are no jobs. Yet low skilled migrants get work.

          So that’s why I’ve suggest the tax angle. It’s very simple to understand. You can stay, so long as you pay more tax than the average government spend. 40K.

          If you earn over 40K, you are going to be skilled, you will speak English well, you will have a big stake in how society works. You aren’t likely to be a criminal. You’re not going to be brainwashed in a Madrassa. Couple that with a long period of time, 20 years, before you get citizenship, and I see no problems.

          Now, if only we could ship out indigenous scum, …

  8. Senex
    30/01/2013 at 12:22 pm

    When the bill in chamber was going through committee the issue of same sex marriage applying to the regent was put to Miss Smith the minister by Mr Bryant:

    “…There is no bar on the heir or other members of the royal family marrying in a civil ceremony. Moreover, I am unaware of any legal bar to somebody who is in a same-sex relationship acceding to the throne…” [Column 281. Para 5]

    This was not challenged. Later Mr Bryant asks another question:

    “I want to ask the Minister about the provisions relating to the Treason Act 1351.” [Column 283 Para 3]

    Miss Chloe Smith replied:

    “…For example, one of the many reasons why we are not discussing hereditary peerages today is that they are not a uniform matter across all the realms. There are other reasons, but you will be pleased to know that I shall not reopen the debate, Mr Evans…”

    Its not clear who the minister is addressing in her reply.

    One might be mistaken given the minister’s earlier reply that she intends polygamy to be a remedy to an unnaturally barren same sex royal marriage and she does this because of the precedent set by the loving needs of James VI and I. Royal marriages acceding to the throne must produce heirs if the royal hereditary line is not to go extinct.

    Ref: Hansard, Jan 22, 2013
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130122/debtext/130122-0004.htm
    Personal Relationships of James VI and I
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_VI_and_I

  9. maude elwes
    06/02/2013 at 2:47 pm

    Yesterday the Commons passed this gay marraige bill whilst the ‘Leader’ stayed hidden from sight, tied up with the American front man and pusher of this game.

    Of course our leader knew this was the end of his career as front man and wanted to weep out of sight. I hope he will feel that reducing the marriage vows of the people across our entire nation to a farce was worth it, and the powerful lobby who told him he would make a fortune for selling us down the river, was also well worth it and would remain true to their promises. Whatever they may be.

    He had no mandate, because he did not put this policy in his manifesto. He knew full well his party, in particular, were heavily against it. From what I read the bill scrapes the bottom of the barrel on the meaning of sexual commitment and opens a way to indtroduce incest as accceptable in marriage under the same guise as this deviant ruse. A marriage between two people of any persuasion is now the ‘norm.’

    What they never mention is health and safety in these matters. Funny that. No one dare touch that little hidden corner do they? Shall we raise it by asking how the guy found dead in the swimming pool of M. Barrymore met his maker?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-137770/Barrymore-pool-man-attacked-died.html#axzz2K7r12ehc

    What are the figures on this little piece of mischief, that is now seen as a general practice equal to the natural event of intercourse between opposite sexes. Taken within their ‘vows’ of fidelity, which, incidentally, will not be required by those of the same sex group. Open play is the name of their game. So much for equality.

    http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/health-risks-of-the-homosexual-lifestyle/

    This move was the move of a socialist government not a conservative government. So what is Cameron playing at? Their claim is, they have a majority of people in this country on their side. Which cannot be possible.

    And here is why:

    59.3% of the population is Christian. 4.8% Muslim, 1.5% Hindu and o.5% Sikh, Jewish, etc.. That totals 66.1%. And therefore you have to some up how many of the others would go along with Gay marriage. (How I love that name which suggest hetrosexual marrage is not gay) Even accounting for not all Christians being anti, it cannot be possible that would make a majority would in favour. And they know it.

    For, if they really believed a majority would be in favour of this change then they would have put in it their manifesto, but, they knew if they did they would not be elected at all. Conservatives, in the main, are not in favour of Gay marriage. And as more than half of those who vote Labour, which has a high immigrant vote, would also make them likely to not be in favour.

    Then we are told 25.1% are other. And 0.8% of other religions.

    http://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/the-enlightened-french-protest-same-sex-marriage.16227/

    The figures don’t add up. So why not a referendum? Do they believe they would find a majority in favour should they offer us a direct vote. No they don’t. So who is the heavy Gay marriage lobby and where do they come from? Certainly not from the ordinary man in the street.

    http://www.brecorder.com/world/europe/96066-support-for-uk-anti-eu-party-grows-over-gay-marriage.html

    Now, even knowing this, they fast tracked it. As it was the only way to force it on us against our will.

    We now have a situation where those who don’t go along with the idea, and that their belief in marriage, as a vow between a man and a woman, is not outdated, or that of a homophobic nature, not bigoted or neanderthal, and therefore not the correct interpretation of their most deeply held feelings being accounted for, must now vote UKIP or for an independent with an opposite view to this. This is far more important to the nation than being in or out of Europe. It is fundamental to our culture.

    Because, we all know that whilst Europe has also gone along with this undesirable policy, against the will of the majority throughout that continent, it was, in fact, led by the United States gay lobby world movement.

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Agenda

    Don’t vote for those who felt you must be forced to live with this, like it or not. Make the only stand you can. Get rid of those in the Commons who would do this behind your back. As, there will be more secret bills they will impose on us if you don’t.

    • 07/02/2013 at 5:47 pm

      Maude, you assume that everyone in each of those faiths is “anti”, in effect a block vote for religions. Opinion polls consistently show a majority in favour. Even if someone practices a religion, it doesn’t mean they agree with everything hard-line clerics say.

      • maude elwes
        08/02/2013 at 11:42 am

        @Jonathan:

        My assumption goes along with what I see and hear. The figures we are given very seldom reveal the truth on matters as controversial as this.

        Remember at the beginning of opening this debate and how we were told there was a grounnswell in favour. That turned out to be a lie didn’t it? And so is this figure you give.

        The majority of people are against this bill. Regardless of their religious beliefs. It is because the teaching of children forcibly and against the family belief is seen as indoctrination of a lifestyle that is unhealthy both mentally and pysically is being pushed down our throats. Whilst they muffle us from speaking. That’s how you get these figures you want to spout.

        Which is why the funders of this state need, direct democracy, on every issue and every level. Without which we will never be able to rid ourselves of these deviant governments who lie their way into office. Either by ommision or by direct deception. Then tell us it is what we wanted and voted for.

        The voter has to stop giving them the where with all to pull this kripp…. Off with their heads.

        • Lord Blagger
          11/02/2013 at 10:52 am

          What are the Lords up to?

          http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/westminster-love-rats-mps-peers-1679833

          MPs, peers or aides hit on a site called Out of Town Affairs 52,375 times in seven months on parliamentary systems.

          Its pages cater for married men and women who are “looking to do the dirty on their partners whilst out of town”.

          The site received 289 hits a day from Westminster computers in December, making it more popular than the official Treasury, Ministry of Justice and Department for Education websites.

          Users are invited to contact fellow cheats after signing up for £25 a month.

          The site’s popularity at Westminster was revealed by a Freedom of Information request asking for the top 500 websites accessed on Parliament computers.

          In December, the website received 8,457 page views alone from computers based in the heart of our democracy.

  10. Senex
    07/02/2013 at 2:13 pm

    On Sunday of next week the Chinese Spring Festival will conclude to bring in the year of the Snake. Coincidently, a bill going through Parliament banishes adultery in same sex marriage and with it the role of the one eyed snake. Hisss! Happy New Year?

    Ref: Chinese New Year
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_New_Year

    PS: Notice the https term in the URL – Use ‘HTTPS Everywhere’.
    The eyes have it. The eyes have it!

  11. 12/02/2013 at 11:13 pm

    Is this “Change of Succession Bill” just an excuse to try to destroy our long standing Common Law Constitution? Is our Constitution getting in the way of other matters?

    As we have a QUEEN, a wonderful Queen, there is obviously no need of any alteration at all, for when our Queen came into power there was absolutely no alteration of all these ACTS. The Bill of Rights are the people’s Bill of Rights, and there is absolutely no need to alter that Bill at all. Any changes must be put before the people, and without doubt.

    If Scotland parts company from the United Kingdom, these changes, if any change is required-and there is absolutely no rush at all, can be donwe at the same time.

    That significant subsequent legislative changes will be required to no fewer than nine Acts of Parliament—the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the Union with Scotland Act 1706, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 and the Regency Act 1937.

    Please note further to the Bill of Rights, which makes very clear, two points of importance at the end of the Bill of Rights.

    II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by _non obstante_ of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.

    III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.

Comments are closed.