'Straight' added to the List of Banned Words

I see that the Crown Prosecution Service has decided that prosecuting the teenager who called Scientology a cult would not be in the public interest. I suppose that we should be thankful that the CPS have, on this occasion, demonstrated a modicum of good sense. However, the fact remains that the police attempted to stifle free speech, purely on the grounds that that speech was, or might be, "offensive".

On Tuesday, I noted that cases such as the above - innocuous conduct being treated as criminal by an overbearing police force - seemed to be happening on a weekly basis. Well, I may have underestimated the frequency with which it occurs, for here is yet another instance of this phenomenon:

A complaint has been made to police over a banner declaring a former gay bar in Sunderland city centre has now gone "straight".

The sign outside the Retox bar, in High Street West, read: "Retox under new management! Now Straight! Top totty dancers on match days!"

A police inquiry is under way into a complaint that the sign, which has now been taken down, was offensive.

The bar owners said it was never their intention to offend.

Assistant manager Carl Lovett said: "We admit it was not the best banner but there was never any intention to cause offence."

I assume, from the way in which this is reported, that the "offensive" part of the sign was the word 'straight', although I suppose that it might just possibly have been the "top totty dancers" bit that did it. Either way, while the sign might have been slightly crude, I fail to see what, precisely, was so upsetting to the complainant. Is mentioning the very existence of heterosexuality now deemed "homophobic"? This bar had changed its commercial direction, to one which it presumably hopes will prove more profitable: is it to be prohibited from announcing that fact to the world?

In any event, as I have repeated time after time, the fact that something is offensive to someone is not in itself sufficient reason for banning it. After all, the right to free speech would have precious little meaning if it was restricted in scope to speech which no one would ever want to silence. But, as we see time and again, that is the road down which this country is heading, at a pretty rapid rate. And, as the behaviour of the complainant in this case demonstrates, there is no shortage of people who not only support the suppression of free speech, but are also willing to assist in it, by becoming informers against those who transgress against the state's notion of acceptable language.

Thought criminals make bad parents, part 2

Last October, I wrote about Vincent and Pauline Matherick, the Christian couple removed from the register of foster parents in Somerset, after they said that they would not be happy discussing homosexual relationships with eleven year-olds.

Thankfully, the Mathericks were subsequently reinstated. However, now a similar case has arisen, up in Derby:

Lawyers are to seek a judicial review of a decision by social workers to ban a Christian couple from fostering young children because they refused to sign up to new gay equality laws.

The action against Labour-controlled Derby City Council is likely to become a test case for the Government's Sexual Orientation Regulations. Social workers rejected an application by Eunice and Owen Johns, who have four grown-up children, to be foster parents because they refused to agree to tell any children in their care that homosexual lifestyles were acceptable.

The couple, who have been married for 39 years, had applied to offer weekend respite care for foster children under the age of 10.

Okay, so far, so bad. But there's more:

But the adoption panel was also unhappy that the couple was adamant that any child in their home would have to go to church with them on Sundays. Mrs Johns, a retired nurse, is a Sunday school teacher.

The adoption panel has admitted in internal documents that Mr and Mrs Johns could feel that they had been "discriminated against on religious grounds".

Now why on Earth would they think that?

Mrs Johns said: "I would love any child, black or white, gay or straight. But I cannot understand why sexuality is an issue when we are talking about boys and girls under the age of 10."

Clearly the words of an unfit parent, and all round ne'er-do-well.

As I wrote back in October, regarding the Mathericks:

Is there even any suggestion that, were a child with homosexual tendencies to be placed with them, they would do him any harm? No - simply because a (foster) parent might disapprove strongly of some of their (foster) child's lifestyle choices does not mean that they cannot raise them in a loving and appropriate manner. I would add that I find it very unlikely that foster parents - or, indeed, legal parents, whether by birth or by adoption - commonly sit their eleven year-olds down and lecture them on the wonders of homosexual relationships, or that they take their teenagers to "gay association meetings" (whatever those are). Yet, somehow, children do not seem to be growing up permanently scarred by the absence of these formative experiences. I would therefore suggest that they are, at best, completely unnecessary.

And as for banning foster parents from taking children in their care to church: well, I think that just illustrates the extent to which far-left, anti-Christian, ideology dominates social services departments. It's fine, it seems, to sit children down and force them to hear about homosexuality, but raising them in the religion which is still adhered to by the majority of Britons - well, that's just beyond the pale!

This case is particularly ridiculous, when one considers that we have for some time had a nationwide shortage of foster parents. Banning couples like the Mathericks, or the Johns, from fostering is not going to solve that situation, and will not help any children. But for the social workers, helping children evidently comes a poor second to promoting leftist ideology.

Hat-tip: Cranmer

The Ladder of Victimhood

The disabled are climbing up it. As it were. The government wants to bring in legislation to make it a crime to incite hatred against them. Because we've all seen the secretly-filmed footage of able-bodied fanatics in their gyms urging the faithful to get down off their exercise bikes and throw people in wheelchairs off mountain tops, haven't we?

But the gays appear to have slipped down a rung or two. You can now use the word 'poof' on TV! Thankfully, they still have their own impending anti-free speech legislation to console themselves with.

NHS Newspeak

Cranmer has an interesting - and rather infuriating - post up about the production of a pamphlet for NHS staff, entitled "Good LGBT Practice in the NHS":

Among other things, the booklet instructs:

All staff should participate in awareness raising sessions so that they are fully aware of appropriate and inappropriate language…

And what constitutes this appallingly homophobic and offensive language?

Using the terms ‘husband’, ‘wife’ and ‘marriage’ assumes opposite sex relationships only and will automatically exclude all LGB people. Using the term ‘partner’ and ‘they/them’ to refer to the partner will avoid this problem. This is also inclusive of all heterosexual couples, regardless of their marital status…When talking to children, consider using ‘parents’, ‘carers’ or ‘guardians’ rather than ‘mother’ or ‘father’.

What an excellent use of taxpayers' money the publication of this pamphlet is. Not to mention, the cost of providing "awareness raising sessions" to teach NHS staff not to use such offensive and (thankfully) rarely-used terms as 'husband' and 'wife'. Of course, some antediluvian individuals might argue that it would be better to spend taxpayers' money on medical treatment for the sick, or return it to the taxpayer. But only bigoted homophobes could possibly share in that sentiment.

Thought criminals make bad parents

They are devoted foster parents with an unblemished record of caring for almost 30 vulnerable children.

But Vincent and Pauline Matherick will this week have their latest foster son taken away because they have refused to sign new sexual equality regulations.

To do so, they claim, would force them to promote homosexuality and go against their Christian faith.

The 11-year-old boy, who has been in their care for two years, will be placed in a council hostel this week and the Mathericks will no longer be given children to look after.

The devastated couple, who have three grown up children of their own, became foster parents in 2001 and have since cared for 28 children at their home in Chard, Somerset.

Earlier this year, Somerset County Council's social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour's new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.

Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings.

When the Mathericks objected, they were told they would be taken off the register of foster parents.

The Mathericks have decided to resign rather than face the humiliation of being expelled.

Mr Matherick, a 65-year-old retired travel agent and a primary school governor, said: "I simply could not agree to do it because it is against my central beliefs.

"We have never discriminated against anybody but I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality when I believe it is against the word of God."

Mrs Matherick, 61, said they had asked if they could continue looking after their foster son until he is found a permanent home, but officials refused and he will be placed in a council hostel on Friday.

She said: "He was very upset to begin with. We are all very close, but he's a mature young man and he's dealing with it."

Who on Earth stands to benefit from this? Certainly not the child being raised by the Mathericks: he is being returned to the tender mercies of the local authority care home as a result of this. Neither will other children benefit: if there is, as there appears to be, a shortage of foster parents, then surely it is totally adverse to the interests of children in care for the number to be reduced still further. Does anyone think that the Mathericks are bad foster parents? Well, they seem to have fostered 28 children without any problems, not to mention having raised three children of their own. It seems that they have both experience and a devotion to the work of fostering. Is there even any suggestion that, were a child with homosexual tendencies to be placed with them, they would do him any harm? No - simply because a (foster) parent might disapprove strongly of some of their (foster) child's lifestyle choices does not mean that they cannot raise them in a loving and appropriate manner. I would add that I find it very unlikely that foster parents - or, indeed, legal parents, whether by birth or by adoption - commonly sit their eleven year-olds down and lecture them on the wonders of homosexual relationships, or that they take their teenagers to "gay association meetings" (whatever those are). Yet, somehow, children do not seem to be growing up permanently scarred by the absence of these formative experiences. I would therefore suggest that they are, at best, completely unnecessary.

No, this decision, and the Labour laws that lie behind it, have nothing to do with the welfare of children, or, indeed, of anyone else. Rather, they constitute yet another attempt to persecute thought criminals - particularly those of the Christian persuasion - and they represent the subordination of the interests of individuals and of the public at large to the dogma of the liberal-left.

Witch Hunt of the Day

From the Lancashire Evening Post:

A young Tory student leader has been expelled from the party and suspended by the University of Central Lancashire for making vile homophobic comments online.

"Vile", they say! What an excellent example of fair and unbiased reporting! Still, it's only the local press: I doubt many journalists on regional papers can even spell 'impartiality', let alone put it into practice.

Fergus Bowman, a second-year politics and religion student from Lancashire, resigned as chairman of the Conservative Future society at UCLan's Students' Union when the comments, on social networking site Facebook, came to light.

He has since been thrown out of the Tory party by national officials.

Mr Bowman, 22, who lives in Catterall near Garstang, has also been banned from the Students' Union while the university investigates. He has apologised to a student newspaper for his comments.

The comments have now been removed from Facebook, but copies seen by the Lancashire Evening Post show Bowman was listed as the head of a group called "Homos burn in hell".

Its homepage featured a picture of a hooded Klu Klux Klan [sic - what was I just saying about standards among representatives of the local press?] member beside a burning cross and the remark "everyone knows homosexuality is against God's wishes".

So, Mr - or should I say, Grand Wizard - Bowman is clearly an out-and-out Nazi. Either that or the picture of a KKK member and the over-the-top language indicates that this group is a bit of a joke.

Mr Bowman went on to make a reference to the link between homosexuals and the AIDS virus.

On another webpage, showing an obscene picture of a man exposing his private parts, Bowman wrote: "And people wonder why I'm anti-semetic."

Again, is this more likely to be an admission that he curls up at night with a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or a joke (possibly one in poor taste, but a joke nonetheless)?

And he branded members of Garstang Country Hotel and Golf Club, which is near his home, as "semi-civilized, illiterate degenerates" on another forum.

The Conservative Party and student leaders have united to condemn Mr Bowman's comments, some of which were made on webpages which anyone could access freely.

A Tory spokesman said: "Fergus Bowman's comments are appalling and we condemn them absolutely.

"He has been expelled from the Conservative party. There's no place for homophobia in today's Britain.

"The Conservative party actively support gay rights."

Students' Union president Chris Lowden said: "We are committed to equal opportunities.

"Fergus's comments breached our constitution. We cannot and will not tolerate such material coming out from one of our members."

A UCLan spokesman confirmed Bowman had been suspended from university while an internal investigation is held. It is expected to take two to three weeks.

Personally, I think that the Tory Party, the university, and the students' union are all guilty of a gross overreaction. It seems quite clear that Bowman was, at worst, guilty of making jokes in somewhat poor taste. Well, so what? Since when were undergraduates expected to behave like paragons of virtue? And, in any event, it's not like he was inciting murder, is it?

But if the Tory Party want to expel him, then I suppose that that is their right. True, doing so may make them look like a bunch of humourless, censorious, liberals, but as an independent political party they have a right to choose who they do, and who they do not, want as their members.

The actions of the University of Central Lancashire give cause for far greater concern, however. Universities are supposed to be bastions of free speech. They are supposed to be places in which the open expression of opinions is encouraged, no matter how vulgar, distasteful, or offensive they may be. It is deeply disturbing that a student can now be suspended, and possibly face expulsion, from a university, simply for making jokes that might cause offence to members of designated victim groups. And the decision to suspend Bowman is not without recent precedent, either: remember the Cambridge Motoons saga? It seems that genuine free speech is becoming an increasingly rare commodity at our universities.

Still, I suppose that Fergus Bowman should just be grateful that Jack Straw's wonderful new anti-thought crime laws aren't in place yet. If they were, he could be looking at seven years in chokey...

The vain search for common sense

I see that the children's charity, Kidscape, has warned that the government's ridiculous new proposals to outlaw incitement to "homophobic" hatred may lead to schoolchildren being arrested for using such innocuous phrases as "your trainers are gay". Kidscape's training manager, Claude Knights, added that if the proposed laws were introduced, then the police would need to use "common sense" in enforcing them.

Sadly, I think that this is something of a vain hope. Remember the case of George Rawlinson, the ten year-old threatened with arrest for using the word 'gay' in an e-mail? Or that of Sam Brown, the Oxford undergraduate taken to court for questioning the sexuality of a police horse? No, I'm afraid that the common sense train has long since left the station, and I don't think it's coming back.

Real Crime Good, Thought Crime Bad

On 27th June, at around 10.30 in the evening, four firemen were driving their engine back to Bristol's Temple Fire Station, when, while passing by the area of open space known as the Downs, they encountered four homosexuals cottaging in a clump of bushes. Upon making this discovery they shone their torches on the participants, before going on their way.

Now, it seems that the cottagers were not very happy about this treatment, and felt that their wonderful and wholesome evening's entertainment had been spoiled. So one of them contacted the Terrence Higgins Trust, who advised him to make a complaint alleging that he and his fellow cottagers had been subjected to "homophobic" victimisation. The complaint was duly made, and following an investigation, during which the accused firemen were suspended from duty, the fire brigade fined two of the firemen, demoted a third, and issued a written warning to a fourth. In addition, all four firemen will be attending a fascinating-sounding conference on the subject of "Lesbians, Gays, Bi-sexuals and Transgender Equality in the Fire Service - an absolute taboo?". Meanwhile, the complainant, whose night of fun was so cruelly curtailed, has pronounced himself happy with the result.

And he certainly should be happy. After all, he's really dealt a blow against the evil of "homophobia", hasn't he? Getting four firemen suspended and then disciplined for shining torches? Result!
In addition, the incident has not been reported to the police, so he and his associates will not have to face the consequences of their crime. Because cottaging is, of course, illegal! Indeed, I'm amazed at the gall of the man (and the Terrence Higgins Trust, who encouraged him), to actually kick up a fuss about a thought crime, when he himself was caught red-handed (or red something, anyway) in the commission of a real crime. I'd also point out that he should count himself lucky that it was these firemen who found him and his friends. Had it been people of a less tolerant and more violent nature, then he might have had rather more worries than simply the fact that a light was shone at him.

As for the Terrence Higgins Trust: I thought that they existed in order to provide support and representation for people infected with HIV. So far as I know, they do not exist in order to play victimhood poker. The fire brigade is equally at fault, and their craven response to this complaint provides yet another indicator of the extent to which politically correct orthodoxy has infiltrated the entire public sector.

Indeed, the only people who appear to have behaved decently through all this are the very people who have been labelled as wicked bigots, and subjected to punishment for their thought crime. In my opinion, they were entirely correct to act in the manner which they chose. Cottaging is an extremely unpleasant form of anti-social behaviour, which can render an area unvisitable by decent people, just as surely as can gangs of thugs drinking on street corners. Those who engage in it do not have a right to be left to their own devices while doing so. This is not to say that I endorse the actions of those who engage in "queer-bashing" (although I would not be greatly upset if queer bashers were to catch the complainant in this case, next time he goes for a nocturnal adventure). However, it does mean that I support those members of the public who make a more peaceable attempt to shame cottagers into ceasing their anti-social behaviour, just as I would support members of the public who used peaceful methods in an attempt to make street corner drinkers behave more reasonably. In the case of cottagers, who thrive off being hidden from view, despite being in public, I would think that shining powerful torches upon their activities was an excellent way of dealing with them.

Save a life - shoot a social worker, part two

Remember Fran Lyon? She's the woman I wrote about a few weeks ago, whose child, as yet unborn, is likely to be taken from her mother at the very moment of birth, on the grounds that a doctor who has never met Ms Lyon believes that she may, in the future, suffer from a non-existent psychiatric condition dreamed up by a discredited quack. Those who have read my post about that, or any of the many posts written on the subject at other blogs, will know that the wonderful and saintly people behind that decision were the dedicated men and women of the social services department - those valiant people, who put the 'nanny' in 'nanny state'.

Well, now I discover where Ms Lyon went wrong: she wasn't a lesbian. Had she been a lesbian then, as we learn today, social workers would have considered it "homophobic" to take her daughter, even if there was a genuine risk of abuse occurring. That, at least, is the impression that I get from reading about the case of Ian Wathey and Craig Faunch.

Wathey and Faunch were one of the first homosexual couples in Britain to be approved as foster parents. Over a period of fifteen months, eighteen children, many of them emotionally disturbed, were placed with them, of whom they sexually abused four. When the mother of one child complained, social workers ignored the complaint, and even started sending more seriously disturbed children to live with them. Of the conduct of social workers involved, a report published yesterday by Wakefield Council said:

One manager described the couple as 'trophy carers' which led to 'slack arrangements' over placement. Another said that by virtue of their sexuality they had a 'badge' which made things less questionable. The sexual orientation of the men was a significant cause of people not 'thinking the unthinkable'. It was clear that a number of staff were afraid of being thought homophobic. The fear of being discriminatory led them to fail to discriminate between the appropriate and the abusive.

As a result of this fear, concerns raised about the behaviour of Wathey and Faunch were "inadequately investigated, understood or acted upon".

Hmm, liberals refusing to confront, or even accept the existence of, paedophilic actions, for fear of appearing to be prejudiced against a designated victim group. Never heard of that happening before!

Readers will be aware that this is by no means the first case in which social workers have failed, and failed in the most abject manner, to prevent genuine abuse from taking place. The tragic Climbie case would be the most notorious recent example of this. Thankfully, Wathey and Faunch didn't actually kill any children, although they must nonetheless have inflicted great damage on those they abused. And I expect that it is only a matter of time before we see another child killed, after social workers fail to intervene.

And yet, social workers are now taking an unprecedented number of children into care. It has even been alleged that some children are being taken into care solely in order to meet government targets. If the Lyon case is anything to go by, then there are some pretty spurious excuses being used to justify taking children away from their natural parents.

Social workers today have a huge amount of power. The ability to separate parent from child is the greatest of the powers they possess. As possessors of this power, it is incumbent upon them to exercise the greatest care, both when taking children from their natural parents, and when placing children with foster parents. At the moment, it seems that they are all too often falling far short of even the most basic degree of competence, in both instances.

'Hello sailor'

In Britain, our children read books about homosexual penguins, and spacegirls with two lesbian mothers. In Sweden, parents are compelled to send their toddler sons to school wearing dresses, to teach them to reject masculine stereotypes. Now, I find that the corruption of schoolchildren has spread to Germany, where pupils from the age of 14 upwards are to be taught "homosexual wooing techniques", in a bid to "break down age-old schoolyard prejudices".

Quite how they are going to learn "homosexual wooing techniques" is unclear: are they just going to practise saying 'hello sailor' in a Kenneth Williams voice over and over again until they get it just right? Apparently "role-playing games" will be involved, but I really don't want to pry too closely into what this means.

However it's going to be taught, it shouldn't be. This is quite clearly an attempt to teach children that being a homosexual, and engaging in homosexual relationships, is in no way worse than being a heterosexual and engaging in a traditional heterosexual relationship. Essentially, therefore, it is an attempt to teach children something which, viewed objectively, is simply not true, but which fits very well with the views of the liberal-left, who seem to dominate education systems across the Western world. These views, if put fully into practice, would completely undermine the special importance that we attach to marriage (genuine, heterosexual marriage), and would contribute to the further slide of this country into nihilistic moral relativism.

I would add that in this particular case children are not merely being taught to like homosexuality, but may well be being taught to become homosexuals themselves. After all, they are being made to pretend to be homosexuals, and to imagine themselves as homosexuals: would it be any wonder if at least some of them were to be pushed over the edge into homosexuality as a result of this kind of thing?

Hat-tip: The Midnight Sun

The spirit of Dr Bowdler

When it first aired 30 years ago in less politically correct times, nobody batted an eyelid at the risque comments made in the prison comedy Porridge.

Ronnie Barker's character Fletcher was always ribbing his fellow inmates, not least Lukewarm, the outlandishly camp chef played by Christopher Biggins.

But three decades on, one particular remark has caused outrage, because it has been removed from a repeat.

Fans of the sitcom, which regularly pulled in more than 10 million viewers, have accused the BBC of "giving in to the politically correct brigade" after a phrase was removed from the programme on Saturday.

They claim the comment "that sort do, don't they", referring to Lukewarm's ability to keep his cell clean, was taken out because it could be offensive to homosexuals.

This decision is ridiculous in a variety of different ways. For a start, picking on this particularly innocuous innuendo is ludicrous, since one routinely hears far more crude and, potentially, offensive innuendo regarding homosexuals (and heterosexuals, for that matter) broadcast by people like Graham Norton, without any efforts towards censorship.

One also has to wonder, since it is apparently now the case that, not only will new shows be prevented from including non-PC content, but that existing TV shows will be retrospectively edited years after their creation, in order to ensure that they conform to the standards of today's PC liberals, where this latter-day Bowdlerisation will end. Will we, for example, see Aristophanes' couplet from The Frogs, "Oh, what's come over Cleisthenes, he looks so full of care/he's lost his lovely boyfriend and his sad cries rend the air" removed, a mere two and a half thousand years after being written, lest it cause offence to homosexuals? In the present climate, that wouldn't surprise me at all.

Blogger faces jail for "causing offence"

In Falkirk, a blogger named Andrew Love has pleaded guilty to committing a "racially-aggravated breach of the peace", and may now face imprisonment. What, you ask, were the heinous acts which constituted this offence? Well, he wrote a blog, in which he "directed insults at groups including black and disabled people, Muslims and homosexuals."

In deferring sentence, Sheriff William Gallacher, the presiding judge, told Love that:

You should be under no illusions that this is a charge of great gravity.

The offence you caused, and might have caused, was very grave indeed, and may need to be marked by the court.

Now, it may well be the case that Love's blog was vulgar, juvenile, and, as the Sheriff said, offensive. The BBC report does not provide any details regarding the blog's content, beyond the fact that it "featured a film clip of a disabled colleague playing a mouth organ and captioned it with an insulting remark", which doesn't sound particularly horrific to me.

However, regardless of the content of the blog, the fact is that all that Love has actually done to merit a criminal record and a possible prison term, is to write things that people found offensive. That, moreover, the wrong kind of people found offensive, for I doubt that he would be in his present predicament had he directed his offensive remarks at white Christian men. To me, it appears that this whole case represents a grotesque violation of Andrew Love's free speech, and is indicative of the increasing extent to which non-PC views are not merely criticised, but are actually criminalised.

Cross-posted at ATW

Academics: Ban the promotion of heterosexuality

In 1988 the Thatcher government passed into law the famous Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which prohibited the promotion of homosexuality in schools. This legislation was repealed by the Blair government in 2003, as a result of which homosexuality can be, and is, promoted in schools.

Now, in a bizarre twist, the University and Colleges Union, whose leftist madness I have discussed very recently, is calling for the promotion of heterosexuality in schools to be criminalised. By a unanimous vote, delegates at their annual conference have given their backing to a motion which reads:

All negative characterisations by teachers of lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender people, identity and lifestyle should be outlawed and classified as an act of discrimination and an incitement to hatred based on sexual orientation.

It should be noted that this motion is not simply calling for acts of discrimination and victimisation directed against homosexual individuals to be prohibited. They already are. Rather, the motion is calling for teachers to be prevented from even suggesting that heterosexuality could in any way be superior to the homosexual lifestyle. Alan Whitaker, of the Oxford and Cherwell Valley College, who proposed the motion, feels that a particular injustice is done by allowing teachers to express the view that heterosexual marriage is superior to homosexual "civil partnerships".

So, there you go. If these liberal academics have their way, then it will become unlawful even to tell children that the institution of heterosexual marriage, which is - or should be - the very bedrock of our society, is the best kind of relationship. This would be disastrous. Marriage has been continually undermined for many years now, and is more than ever in need of protection and promotion. But it seems that, for these academics, the demands of whining homosexuals take precedence over the needs of society.

Cross-posted at ATW

Burn the Heretics!

Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson has been rapped by the media watchdog for describing a car as "a bit ginger beer" - Cockney rhyming slang for "queer".

Ofcom said there was "no justification" for the comment.

Clarkson was discussing a Daihatsu Copen during an episode of the BBC show last year.

He referred to it as "a bit gay", adding: "It's a bit ginger beer."

Ofcom said use of the word "gay" was not necessarily offensive.

It referred to the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "gay" as "foolish, stupid and occasionally inappropriate, disapproved of and lame".

But the watchdog said: "In this edition of Top Gear, the presenter's use of a Cockney rhyming phrase made clear he intended to give a particular meaning to use of the word 'gay'... ie not to restrict its meaning simply to foolish or stupid, but clearly linking the reference to homosexual people.

"This, in Ofcom's opinion, meant that the use of the word became capable of giving offence. In the context, there was no justification for using the word in this way."

Well, perhaps not. But there's no justification for much of the rubbish that's spouted on popular television programmes. All sorts of inane trash is spouted by the various identikit morons who seem to present all the reality TV shows and so on. At least Clarkson is interesting, and different from the common mould of primetime presenters. Indeed, I would say that Clarkson represents "diversity" in a world dominated by mundane cretins. But, hey, that counts for nothing. He said "gay"! Burn the heretic!

Ofcom said the complaint had been resolved because the BBC had already warned the production team and producers not to repeat the offence.

Interesting how a thought crime is described in terms traditionally reserved for real crime.

The BBC's own investigation upheld complaints about Clarkson's use of the word "gay" during the episode screened in July last year.

So, you can be virulently racist, or Christianophobic. Just don't stray from the path of political correctness. Then you too can work for al-Beeb!

Note: For the avoidance of doubt, the image accompanying this post depicts a Daihatsu Copen motorcar. Not a homosexual.

Homosexual Penguins 2: The Leftist Strikes Back

Remember the government-funded "academics" whose great contribution to modern life was to promote homosexuality, by, among other methods, publishing and promoting books about homosexual penguins? I wrote about it back in March.

Well, the Northern Echo has an interview with Dr Elizabeth "Thick Lizzy" Atkinson, the post-modernist cretin responsible for this colossal waste of public money:

Dr Elizabeth Atkinson, 48, of Sunderland University, is the director of the No Outsiders project, which uses books such as King & King in an effort to combat homophobic bullying. The two-year project - which is halfway through its first year - is being run in 14 primary schools in the South and the Midlands, with plans to expand it nationally.

Yes. Why read them Enid Blyton, when you could brainwash them?

Sitting in a cafe in Newcastle, Dr Atkinson says she doesn't mind that the project has attracted such vehement opposition - it's all part of the wider debate. "To be attacked is a sign of recognition that you are doing something to change the world and the job of education is to change something for the better," she says. "Fair enough if I'm attacked for changing the world for the better - so be it."

Note to Thick Lizzy: the purpose of working in education is not to change the world for the better (something which you certainly aren't doing anyway). Astonishingly enough, it is to - wait for it - educate! And, by the way, that doesn't mean the same thing as 'indoctrinate'.

And can't you just hear the sanctimonious tone of this woman's voice? "I'm changing the world for the better", forsooth! I can think of many, many people doing rather more towards that end than her, and bragging about it rather less.

"We knew when we started this that the Christian groups wouldn't like it because they don't like homosexuals. It wasn't surprising."

Does anyone else get the impression that she doesn't like Christians?

The £568,000 research project has been funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.

As I said last time: that means it's been funded by the taxpayer. That's us, folks!

It is led by Dr Atkinson, reader in social and educational inquiry [not quite a Regius Professorship is it? - FR], and her colleague at Sunderland University, Renee DePalma, in conjunction with Exeter University and the Institute of Education in London. The aim is to help primary school teachers develop their own school-based projects to combat homophobic bullying. Those projects can use books, such as King & King, or they can be arts or theatre based. But, says Dr Atkinson, it is not about teaching four-year-olds about sex.

"It's got nothing to do with sexual activity, it's an equality issue and a human rights issue," she says. "It's no more talking about sexuality if you've got two princes falling in love than if you have a prince and a princess falling in love. If they raised questions about sex between a prince and prince you would use the same appropriate language as if they'd asked about the prince and the princess.

"But children as young as four are quite aware that there are gay relations. If they turned to a teacher and said 'oh it's a gay dad', it's a quite straightforward acknowledgement for a teacher to say 'that's right' and leave it at that."

One factor behind the scheme, she says, is about recognising that some children do not have heterosexual parents. "If there's somebody with two mums, who comes from this loving family background, but discovers that there's nothing which reflects her life, she may find that she has to be silenced for fear of not appearing to be normal."

Is there any evidence that what Thick Lizzy calls "homophobic bullying" actually takes place? When I was at school, we did actually have a boy whose mother had left his father for another woman. He seemed to be treated pretty much as everyone else, despite the absence of gay penguins enriching our lives, and expanding our wicked, prejudiced, minds.

In any event, a homosexual coupling is far from being the ideal family background for any child, and depicting it as such is simply misleading.

"That silence is imposed on her [by whom? - FR] from the age of three or four, not at 12," she says."If you leave it until secondary school to address those issues you've left it too late because children are already living with the expectations of how girls should behave and how boys should behave. All it takes is to understand that being different is part of normality."

Ooh, how very post-modern. And utterly meaningless.

That normality, says Dr Atkinson, can be reached with help from the books.

Okay, now it just sounds like a sales pitch.

After burbling on a bit, Thick Lizzy continues:

"Section 28 led to the continued marginalisation for children and adults who did not fit into specific norms," says Dr Atkinson. "What repealing Section 28 has done is make it possible for that group of people to have their human rights recognised. It's no good saying we're going to have equality but there's going to be an exception. There should be no exceptions."

Yes. Right, wrong, good, bad. Why discriminate between them? All judgements are just evidence of prejudice, etc, and the facts that homosexual relationships are less stable than heterosexual ones, or that children benefit from having both a mother and a father should just be cast to the winds. After all, why let the facts get in the way of promoting liberal ideals?

This is not simply a question of protecting innocent, and unfortunate, children from bullying because of the dubious lifestyle choices of their parents. For a start, as I said above, there is no evidence that "homophobic bullying" is a problem. Rather, this is an attempt to make children think that homosexuality is a normal, and a good, thing, entirely equal to heterosexuality. And that is simply not the case.

Those Tolerant Homosexuals

Catholic teaching on homosexuality remains intolerant, backward, illiberal and morally questionable.

Magnus Linklater, The Times, 24th January 2007

Well, we all have our own opinions on that. Personally, I think it's good that the Catholics have taken a stand over issues like homosexual adoption, wish the Church of England would do the same, and regard Linklater's list of adjectives as being merely ritualistic curses hurled by post-modernist liberals upon those with whom they are displeased. However, even those who agree with Linklater must surely acknowledge that the behaviour of homosexual activists in Italy shows his use of the word 'intolerant' to be a profound overstatement:

The archbishop of the Italian city of Genoa received a bullet in an envelope at his office. It was the latest threatening message for the prelate, who is leading a campaign against same-sex unions, Vatican Radio said Sunday in Vatican City.

The bullet arrived Friday at the office of Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco, who was recently elected to head the politically influential Italian Bishops Conference, the radio report said. It quoted a Genoa newspaper as saying the envelope also contained a photo of the archbishop with a swastika cut into it.

Bodyguards stood a few yards from the altar in Genoa's cathedral Sunday as Bagnasco celebrated Mass. They were assigned to protect the archbishop a few weeks ago after graffiti was scrawled on buildings threatening him.

And yet somehow it's the archbishop who's the bigot, oppressing the poor homosexuals. Remind me, how many homosexuals has he threatened to kill recently?

(Hat-tip: Archbishop Cranmer; cross-posted at ATW)

Academic Idiocy Watch

Every now and then, some obscure academic at one of our great seats of learning comes out with something indescribably stupid. Usually, this has some relationship to the far-left political views which are the norm in academia. Today, Professor Ann Jacoby of Liverpool University has produced quite the most ridiculous piece of "research" that I have seen for some time. The purpose of this research: to demonstrate that villages - all of them - are hotbeds of that most evil of sins (indeed, in the post-modern world, the only sin), prejudice!

Professor Jacoby, a social scientist, said: "The rural idyll is very nice so long as you fit into certain categories, but problematic if you don't.

"You should be married, have children, and live in this conservative family unit."

Well, there's a statement I can quite agree with. I don't think she's talking about her own views, though.

How did Professor Jacoby reach her deeply profound conclusions:

For the study, the professor's colleague, Francine Watkins, spent some time living in Stonycroft, a village with a population of 450, somewhere between London and Birmingham.

The village's name has been changed to protect the identities of those interviewed.

Life in the 16th-century village revolves round the thatched inn, church and village hall. Most of the residents are white. Three-quarters are married or co-habiting.

Heaven forfend! White, married heterosexuals! Such wicked people can't help but be prejudiced.

But, to return to Professor Jacoby's methodology: it seems that her colleague, Miss Watkins, went to one village, found a few malcontents, and then used their whining to smear everyone who lives in the countryside. Not, perhaps, the most accurate method. Rather like tossing a coin once, and then declaring that a coin will always land heads up. But more inaccurate than that.

Obviously the learned professor really earns her £60,000 or so of taxpayers' money per year.

Teachers' leader gets straight to the real issues (no pun intended)

At a time when school discipline continues to collapse, the heads of Britain's teaching unions are ignoring such minor concerns as rape in the classroom, to focus on the issues that really matter to teachers, parents, and the taxpaying public. Last Saturday, Baljeet Ghale, head of the National Union of Teachers, was complaining about "racism". Now, not to be outdone, Chris Keates, head of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Woman Teachers (NASUWT) has spoken out against "homophobia".

More specifically, Miss Keates has attacked the television show 'Life on Mars', alleging that it has caused a rise in "homophobic bullying":

Ms Keates was protesting after this week's final episode of the popular BBC TV drama series - watched by 7.7 million viewers - featured an incident where the abrasive DCI Gene Hunt hurled a volley of insults at a colleague, including calling him a "fairy boy".

Yes. That's obviously of far greater concern than rapes and stabbings in the classroom and schoolyard. I wonder whether Miss Keates has engaged in conversation with an average eight year old in the past 20 years or so? "Fairy boy" would certainly be at the milder end of the vocabularies of some of the ones I've come across.