This is Didactophobe's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Didactophobe's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Didactophobe
Recent Activity
I have great reservations about all so-called 'hate crime'. By all means tackle discrimination. But 'hatred' is a private emotion. When it reveals itself in anti-social behaviour, then the anti-social behaviour is the problem, not a 'thought crime' based on imputing a private motive to someone. A free society does not need a nannying government telling it not to 'hate' Muslims, or homosexuals, or whichever other minority is the flavour of the day. A Conservative government should uphold the principle that we are all equal under the law. As long as your lifestyle is not hurting anyone, you should have the freedom to practise it: however, adults should be treated as adults and they don't have to like you or your lifestyle. That is what freedom is about.
1 reply
Islamic law allows polygamy. Most Muslim countries do NOT allow polygamy. This is another example of the woolly-minded liberal approach which is so frightened of Islam and Muslims (despite not understanding it or them) that it feels obliged to surrender to the most extreme ideas which most Muslims would not feel comfortable with. After World War 1, Atatürk dragged Turkey kicking and screaming into the 20th Century. He recognised that the only way of doing it was to smash the power of the Islamists and the measures he took would have liberals like Cameron rushing to hide under their beds. But they worked.
1 reply
Ephraim Gadsby said... All drivers should be aware of the local speed limit at all times, and if for any reason they are not then they should assume it's 30, and drive accordingly. I tried that, Ephraim, and got a ticket and three points for doing 27mph in what I discovered was a 20 limit! This was at 10pm on a weekend evening on a street deserted other than the officers with the speed trap. Yes, I was breaking the law. However, it is this sort of petty and pedantic attitude, rather than prioritising serious crime (even serious speeding!) which does so much to alienate the police from those of us who would otherwise consider ourselves to be law-abiding people.
1 reply
Indeed. Blair's plans for 'tackling poverty and attracting sustainable investment' were not exactly a roaring success in this country and certainly haven't left us in a healthier position than when he started.
1 reply
Atlantic Bridge is entirely upfront about its Conservative goals. Whether it should be a registered charity is certainly open to question. Blair's charity indicates nothing about domestic politics and claims to be all about helping Africans 'tackle poverty and attract sustainable investment'. I agree there has to be significant punishment for charities which are blatantly party-political, as Blair's evidently is. It might be time to make an example of one, such as AGI, and remove its charitable status.
1 reply
@ TIM: "Palestinians are also excluded from voting in Israel's elections." - Not true. There are 14 Arab members of the Knesset, elected mainly (unless you know differently) by Arabs. "The only way that Israel can now recover its moral authority is to remove ALL settlements and move rapidly towards a two state solution." - The reward for withdrawing from Gaza was to come under daily attack by savages who have no interest in reaching a peaceful solution. - Until Hamas has a 'Clause 4 moment' and withdraws from its Charter its commitment to the destruction of Israel, it is difficult to reach any agreement with them. To say that Israel should make peace with Hamas is like suggesting that 1930s Jews should have made peace with the Nazis. It is either unbelievably naive or unspeakably wicked and cynical. - The original "2 state solution" as envisaged by the UN did not work in 1948 because the Arab countries refused to recognise Israel. They had no interest in the Palestinians.
1 reply
I can see the faults of FPTP. However, I cannot convince myself that second past the post is more democratic. If the most popular candidate is elected under AV, the result will be no different to FPTP (albeit the majority may be different). If the most popular candidate is not elected at all under AV, defeated by someone with more second preference votes, it strikes me as being grossly unfair. A second, third or fourth preference is, by definition, a candidate that you don't want to be elected. What we need is FPTP with equal-sized constituencies. That way, the party with the most votes, Tory or Labour, will almost certainly form the government and will usually have a working majority. We need to eliminate the in-built bias which Labour currently enjoys: not to unbalance it in our favour, just to make it completely fair. In a genuinely close election, like this year, there will still be the possibility of a coalition, as we currently have.
1 reply
I agree with BritishWatcher. The regional parties from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will not oppose the idea of English votes for English laws. Cameron has the necessary support to force through a bill to that effect. The SNP administration in Scotland relies on Conservative support (although neither side openly admits it) and I cannot believe that a reciprocal arrangement cannot be found. The SNP will bring Plaid Cymru with them. Cameron for PM; put up an emergency budget and challenge the other parties to vote it down. Once an administration is established, the voters would punish parties who were to force a quick second election. The only way for Labour to stay in power is to forge a rainbow alliance of Liberal, Green, Nationalists and Unionists, many of whom despise each other. No chance of it working. Time also to stop being politically correct - our MPs have been elected as Conservatives and should govern as Conservatives. Ethnic minority voters will back us if we support law and order and family values; gay voters will back us if we support law and order and low taxation. Forget wishy-washy PC nonsense. Please, Dave.
1 reply
Gary Farrimond - "I put my teaching career on the line many times to help a confused and frightened youngsters and would do so again." Sorry, Gary. That is complete nonsense. I am a teacher too, and I have not altered my approach since Section 28 was repealed. Section 28 prevented the 'promotion' of homosexuality; it did not prevent teachers acting with compassion, or understanding, or helping young people. To my mind, Section 28 sought to achieve a sensible balance which we have now lost.
1 reply
David Cameron voted against the repeal of Section 28. Mr Lardner agreed with him. I cannot think of any precedent for a 'leader' sacking someone for supporting them. It demonstrates an ethos of 'leadership' which I feel very uncomfortable voting for. I feel absolutely sickened by this. It is not the gay issue - it is the freedom of conscience and freedom of speech issue. All candidates should have freedom to express views on moral issues. For the first time, I can really understand why people vote for UKIP. Perhaps there really is no difference between LibLabCons. Perhaps it would be best to accept PR and being part of a tiny party that would never win power, but in which a wide range of opinions were tolerated and which actually stood for something.
1 reply
I am astounded at the lies being peddled in this video. In addition to which, many of the issues being mentioned are in devolved areas, so they are not relevant to this election.
1 reply
Graham, you are baiting me to say something homophobic. Well, I won't bite. Sorry. My point is about finding a balance between giving gay people access to services (as they have in any hotel in the country) and respecting the rights of the smallest businesses to operate in a way that is consistent with the owners' beliefs.
1 reply
Do they turn them away, or do they simply refuse them double rooms? I think there is a big difference. In the smallest establishments (and no one denies that hotels and larger B&Bs should not discriminate), I believe that people must have the right to choose what behaviour to permit in their home. They should also have the right to advertise this, so that no one faces the humiliation of turning up and being refused. I would not permit an unmarried couple of any persuasion to share a bed in my home. Equally, what the couple does elsewhere is none of my business. That is tolerance.
1 reply
Actually, no. Such a sign would, I am quite sure, be seen as discriminatory if it appeared to affect gay people disproportionately (eg forbidding anal sex). A sign which says 'double rooms may only be booked by married couples' should be permitted in small establishments, in my opinion.
1 reply
Sorry, Raj, you are wrong. Discrimination based on innate characteristics would mean the owners would ban all gay people (assuming for the sake of argument (on another occasion I would challenge you) that being gay is innate. Denying them a single service (sharing a room) is discrimination against behaviour. There is a big difference. Your final paragraph adds nothing to the debate and is a bit weird, frankly. I don't know if your first point is right - what does the majority support? I do know that politicians of all parties didn't bother to consult humble plebs like us before they introduced this particular law.
1 reply
Agreed. Would you support advertising 'Christian married couple friendly' by the same token? Also, the issue is not about banning straight, or gay, people. It is about preventing gay people accessing one particular service (ie sharing a double room). I find it difficult to believe that a 'gay friendly' establishment could simultaneously claim to be 'gay friendly' in a way that goes beyond the basic non-discrimination requirements, yet also provide precisely the same service to straight people.
1 reply
I think the test should be whether your dentist is earning a living from it. Presumably he is, therefore he is running a full-time business (equivalent to a hotel) and should not be permitted to discriminate. If he was just doing the odd filling as a spare time hobby (equivalent to letting out a room to paying guests), then he should be able to discriminate. A second test would be, on what grounds is he discriminating? A B&B owner may be uncomfortable with sexual behaviour that offends his religious beliefs taking place under his roof. Only the most peculiar of perversions would lead someone to their dentist's surgery for a bit of nookie. So, again, the B&B owner would have a better case for discrimination than would the dentist.
1 reply
The Conservative Party should beware. There will be millions of people up and down the country (I suspect a majority) who believe that what Grayling said represents a sensible compromise. I am one of them. Of course, people should not be discriminated against in larger establishments. However, if I am letting out a room or two in my home, I should have the right to state whom to admit. Lots of establishments advertise themselves as 'gay-friendly' and I don't propose banning them. Nor should a B&B be vilified if they prefer not to have gays sharing a room. To compare this to discrimination on race is disingenuous. If the gay men had booked single rooms at the B&B, they would not have been turned away. Someone with a prejudice against black people would have turned away any black person. It's not the same thing. Discrimination against gays by denying them a double room is merely discriminating against certain behaviour. Again, the issue is not whether you approve or not of such behaviour. The issue is whether a homeowner has the right to demand certain standards of anyone during the time they are under his or her roof. The answer has to be 'yes'.
1 reply
1. The parent was invited to visit the school to see the work the kids had produced. 2. The parent declined. What we have is the usual scenario, with the story blown out of all context. A parent who, by their own admission, chose not to investigate the facts is choosing to trash their local school's reputation. Were the 11 year olds really traumatised? I doubt it, to be honest. Some of them undoubtedly will have exaggerated to get attention. Unfortunately, too many daft adults will take the kids' account at face value, rather than delving deeper. The Holocaust affected children much younger than that in ways that are unimaginable to these mollycoddled little lambs. There is no happy ending to the story.
Toggle Commented Mar 12, 2010 on Powerless parents at CentreRight
1 reply
Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman, Alistair Darling, David Miliband - they are all married. They sneer at attempts to 'promote' marriage, yet recognise the benefits of it for their own families. Why has marriage become 'middle class'? Well, for people on low incomes, there is often a significant financial benefit through the tax and welfare system for people to remain unmarried, especially if they have children. The 'few pounds a week' that the lefties like to sneer at, can be quite important for people in that situation. I am a teacher and I can speak from first hand, and second and third hand, experience. The better behaved, more contented, successful and healthy children tend to come from parents who are married. The children with ADHD and other behavioural issues; who are poor attenders or who have learning or emotional problems, tend to come from unmarried, usually single, parents. Yes, there are exceptions. However, that is no reason to ignore the overwhelming evidence that marriage tends to be good for the children of the marriage. Children from broken homes often get far more taxpayers' money spent on them: special needs teachers and auxiliaries; social workers etc etc. It is time that we targeted a tax break that will disproportionately benefit people on modest incomes who struggle against the odds to raise their children decently. Support for marriage is one of the key reasons that I shall vote Conservative, and I am deeply uncomfortable about any attempt to water down the party's commitment to it. Children from married families tend to cost less in terms of welfare etc than those from broken homes. They are often healthier, and use the NHS less. They get into crime more rarely, therefore saving money in the criminal justice and social work systems. They are more likely to get jobs and contribute to society when they grow up. As a Conservative, I believe there is a clear financial benefit to the country, which ought to be recognised in the form of a significant tax break.
1 reply
I am utterly depressed at the prospect of this vile and corrupt Government remaining in power. I shall vote Conservative but, frankly, with little conviction. Cameron - lacks principle, as shown by reneging on his promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty; by voting in favour of keeping Section 28, then apologising for the fact it was introduced; by disagreeing with the increase in the top rate of Income Tax, yet insisting that a Conservative government would keep it; by trying to water down and weasel out of the commitment to the Married Couple's tax allowance. Cameron - has packed his shadow cabinet with effete ex-public schoolboys. While Labour was ruining the economy, we needed a hard man like Hague to go for the jugular as Shadow Chancellor. While Labour was allowing the country to be over-run by immigrants, we needed a man of principle like Davis as Shadow Home Secretary to argue our case. While Labour was betraying centuries of British history by signing the treacherous Lisbon Treaty, we needed a man of intellect and gravitas like Rifkind as Shadow Foreign Secretary. While Labour was adding scores of billions to the national debt by pouring money into the black hole that is the NHS, we needed a man who knows and understands the problems of the NHS like Fox as Shadow Health Secretary to explain how we would make it more efficient. Instead, we had Dave promising to commit even more billions. Cameron - by picking the right team, by standing by his principles, and by standing clearly by them, could have won this Election and begun to heal our broken society. Instead, he has failed. Conservative voters are not interested in how many Tory MPs are gay, bisexual, women, Muslim or from ethnic minorities. We care that they believe in law and order; a strong economy and protecting British sovereignty. Yet Dave has fallen into the trap of trying to appease every minority who would never have voted Tory in a million years, while kicking traditional Tories in the teeth. He has taken his eye off the ball and has focused on minutiae. It isn't too late. We can still win the next election, by hammering the message of PRINCIPLE. 1. As a PRINCIPLE, no one in the country should pay more than half their income in direct taxes. 2. As a PRINCIPLE, dangerous criminals should be kept off the streets, and no Conservative Home Secretary will ever be over-ruled by a foreign court other than on a law directly relevant to free trade. 3. As a PRINCIPLE, no able-bodied person should be allowed to spend half their adult life on benefits. 4. As a PRINCIPLE, we shall immediately repeal the Human Rights Act and put in its place a Bill of Rights, beginning with the phrase "We, the people..." which shall be adopted after a Referendum. The Bill of Rights will reject any and every area of law in which the UK is subservient to the EU, or would be in the future, save where these relate strictly to the promotion of free trade (which is all we have ever had the chance to vote on) or have been adopted by a British government as the result of a referendum or at least a manifesto commitment in a General Election. 5. As a PRINCIPLE, by the end of five years, the national debt will have been reduced and British people will be contributing a lower share of their earnings in direct taxation. 6. As a PRINCIPLE, a Conservative government will justify taxation not in terms of how tax cuts are funded, but in justifying why tax has to be taken from the taxpayer in the first place. 7. As a PRINCIPLE, the rights of a householder will take precedence over the rights of a burglar in every case. Believe ne, I still want Cameron to win, but he has to EARN it and FAST.
1 reply
Gorbals Mick was rightly attacked for his partisanship and demeaning the office of Speaker. It is, therefore, bizarre for anyone to attack Bercow on the grounds that he is not a 'real' Conservative. Either we want the Speaker to be partisan or we don't. Bercow is an articulate, experienced politician who found that party politics was no longer his scene: precisely the qualities that we needed to see in Gorbals' replacement.
1 reply
Didactophobe added a favorite at mylabourposters's blog
Feb 21, 2010
"There's a guy in a garage for some reason." - Try to grasp this, Dara. A guy in a garage is called a mechanic. He has a J-O-B and has to work ordinary hours for an ordinary wage to support his family. The taxes of millions of people just like him go towards funding the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation so it can give you obscene amounts of money to sit on your fat backside making jokes about people who, successfully or not, are trying to make this country a better place to live. The next Conservative government MUST reform the BBC so that it can never again waste people's taxes on propaganda. The first person I would fire is David Dimbleby whose partisanship is utterly disgraceful, particularly on an allegedly unbiased forum such as Question Time. However, large numbers of senior managers, producers and presenters need to follow him out the door. No doubt their beloved Liebour Party will give them jobs.
1 reply
"Why are not all religions represented there" - Because the UK is constitutionally a Christian country. Mess with the constitution and you endanger the Union - why do you think Alex Salmond is so keen to meddle with it? "in proportion to their adherents – atheists included?" - Atheists are not a religion. The British Humanist Association has barely twice as many members as my local parish church - it is a tiny and irrelevant organisation. "BUT, intolerance of other's beliefs, gays, women's rights etc should be outlawed" - I presume you do mean 'intolerance' rather than 'discrimination'? That you support making people's private thoughts, as opposed to their actions, illegal? Please think it through.
1 reply