Day 5655: Taking Pride!

Saturday – Happy Pride!

I was one of more than 40 LGBT+ Liberal Democrats to march in the 2016 Pride in London Parade, joined by Parliamentary representation from their Lordships Liz Barker and Brian Paddick, along support from London Assembly Member Caroline Pidgeon and Chair of London Region Chris Maines.

A good showing for Tower Hamlets too, with my friends Anita, Ed and Richard, and friend of the borough Drew also joining the march.

It was a joyful day, much needed after the referendum results. The crowd greeted us with great enthusiasm, loudly joining in chants of “E.U. We. Love. You!” It was a day to warm a liberal internationalist’s heart.

Liz Barker said: “Remember – we showed real leadership and it is recognised and remembered!”

Chair of LGBT+ Lib Dems Adrian Hyyrylainen-Trett was on the Pride organising committee and with Liberal Democrat Ed Lord marched at the head of the parade alongside London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

(Seen here in blue shirts either side of the mayor; photo from the Guardian)

Many thanks to Ben Mathis for organising our shocking pink “Be You Be Free Be Liberal” tee-shirts and getting us entry tags for the parade.

It was a day when we could be Proud of any and every sexuality and gender identity; Proud of London; and Proud of being Liberal Democrats. And the cheering crowd agreed.



(This blog also appearing at: 25TH JUNE: TAKING PRIDE)

Day 5533: 1% - A Decade of Millennium

Wednesday:


T'was ten years ago, I first opened my VERY FLUFFY DIARY and shared my GENIUS with the World.

How many things have changed in that time!

There have been three* James Bond films; four** Doctor Whos; and for five years the Liberals ran the country. A bit.

And I used to think that IMPORTANT things needed to be EMPAHASISED and so I used a lot of ALL-CAPS!

Nowadays I realise that in the Internets this is considered VERY FUNNY and should be ENCOURAGED!

So if you think YOU feel old remember… next year THE FLUFFY ELEPHANT GETS THE VOTE!

Daddy's Little Spectre

*also "Quantum of Sausage".

**Dr Dave, Dr Mat, Dr Hurt and Dr PeterC (Dr Chris just missed).

We've see the Rise and Fall of Prime Monster, Mr Frown...

From the resignation of phoney Tony... and the Government of All the Goats... to the election that never was.

From Stalin to Mr Bean. From economic crisis to 10p tax debacle to the Expenses Scandal.

Through the plottings of Milipede Snr to the Coup that Collapsed.

To I Agree With Nick.

We've lived through The Coalition...

From the decision to go into government…

…to the first 100 days that no commentator would have predicted the government would survive…

…through the difficult middle years…

…to the last Coalition budget (where I spot that Milipede Jnr has spotted his forthcoming defeat).

We've discovered it really IS the economy, stupid

And I've told you all about MONEY and WEALTH, the ECONOMIC CYCLE and the CREDIT CRUNCH and QUANTITATIVE EASING.

We've seen what happened to Northern Rock and the fall of Bear Sterns (who even remembers them!).

We've seen why Ed Miliband was wrong about the "myth" of Labour overspending …and fisked of a Labour Troll who tried baiting me!

And recently we've asked what does a Cobynite Labour economic policy actually MEAN?

and what should a Liberal Economic Policy Look like?

We've watched a LOT of movies…

Some old favourites GLORIOUSLY reinvented...

...and some that would have been better left alone!

Some Harry Potter and some Pirates and some More Pirates

Superman and Batman (good) and Batman (not so much)

Star Wars (cartoon version) and Star Trek (likewise)

Narnia and His Dark Materials




And VERY OCCASIONALLY some JAMES BOND. And some JAMES BOND. And some JAMES BOND!

…and we've watched some REALLY bad television

Bottomkickers...

Robbing Hoodie...

and, Crotchwoot


With special mention for The Amazingly Awful Mrs Pritchard (hang on, that's Daddy Alex's!)

We've had a few Christmases...

Jingle Bells

Jingle Bells

Fluffy All the Way

Oh What Fun

It Is to Ride

On a One ELEPHANT

Open Aston Martin...

And we may even have touched upon religion

When I may have occasionally disagreed with The Beardy-Weirdy of Canterbury. Once or twice.

Not to mention the Cardinal arch-bigot of Westminster

or Ruth Kelly and the Elder God Delusion!

But here are my absolute top ten favourite things about my diary for the first ten years…

#10 Mr Balloon Cartoon

OK, the silly names.

Over the years, I've had my little, er, misunderstandings about people's names, whether it was calling the leaders of my own Party Captain Clegg (as in the notorious Pirate Clegg) or Sir Mr the Merciless (as in the notorious Emperor Ming) or those of the (Hard) Labour Party Lord Blarimort, Mr Frown or Mr Milipede.

…or there are the ever changing adjectives to describe the perma-tanned pestilence that is Mr Peter Vain, er Hain. He been:

An Orange-hued apostate

A Tangerine-toned Turncoat

A Satsuma-skinned surrender monkey

A Clementine-Coloured Catspaw

A Peach-painted preener

A Sepia-stained stool-pigeon

A Fuchsia-finished old fraud

A Beige-Basted Bumbler

A Ridiculous russet rogue

A Terracotta-tinted twit

and a Heliotrope-hued hole in the head not to mention firebrick-brushed fraud!

…but from very early on – okay, in fact from my VERY FIRST diary – I have called the then leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and now (as absurd as it may seem, and with whatever culpability for it that the Liberal Democrats may have) Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Rt Hon David William Donald Cameron… Mr Balloon.

He just LOOKS like a Balloon. An empty pink bladder with a smile painted on it.

So OBVIOUSLY I was delighted when a national newspaper cartoonist came to the same conclusion!

see also my favourite "interview" with the Rt Hon Dave Balloon.

#9 Coining the term "Unpology"

The era of New Labour came and went like a bout of gastric flu, but it left behind a legacy of political spin doctoring – ironically usually reduced to just "spin", when the whole point of Labour's news management strategy as run by Mr Alistair Henchman was to counter the "spin" that the (mostly right-wing) press were already putting on their stories about the non-Tory Party.

Terms like "remaining on message", sticking to "the grid" and "burying bad news" have all added to the public feeling that politicians – ALL politicians – are manipulative, deceptive even downright deceitful.

But the apogee (or nadir) of this technique comes with the dark art of appearing to deliver an apology while actually not doing so, and often managing to blame the person to whom you should be apologising for their misinterpretation of your perfectly acceptable behaviour being the only reason for taking offence.

Mr Frown's Hope Secretary Jacqui Smith delivered a particularly fine (by which I mean un-fine) example.

#8 Millennium on the Moon

Labour under Lord Blairimort quite quickly gave up any pretense of Civil Libertiies and started playing the SECURITY card left, right, and centre… tell more like right and far-right and even further right.

Quite early on, I had to go ON THE RUN from the Stormtroopers of the Labour Government after they mistook my SINCERE ADMIRATION for JAMES BOND for GLORIFICATION of TERRORISM. Fortunately, I was able to apply for political asylum on the Moon. Here's the full saga…

In hiding!

In Space!

I was NOT driving!

Monster!

In the Soup!

Nose Trouble!

Escape… to Danger!

(In tribute to our dear friend Dr Nick, every title ends in a !)

#7 Defeating Mr Frank Luntz

Another early victory was the time we had a run-in with Republican Push-Poller and semi-resident "expert" on Newsnight, Mr Frank Luntz.

He had presented what he called a focus group on the telly. Clearly a sensitive soul, he posted comments on a lot of Lib Dem blogs… but obviously it was MY piece, suggesting how a STAGE MAGICIAN could have arrived at a VERY SIMILAR outcome that most troubled him.

Here's how he might have done it…

…and here's me replying to him replying to me!

He tried his hand at "predicting" again, with the thankless task of suggesting someone other than Mr Frown might succeed Lord Blairimort (and how did THAT work out, again?)…

…then made an appearance on the Comic Relief Apprentice…

…before buttering up our own Capitan Clegg.

Pleasingly, Newsnight stopped billing him as "pollster" and started crediting him as a Republican. Full disclosure is good.

#6 Defeating the "Liberal" Conspiracy

I never REALLY took to the project launched by Mr Sunny Hundal and dubbed (not JUST by me) as "Labour Conspiracy", seeing it as at best a well-meaning BLACK HOLE that would suck in and swallow up non-Labour blogs into supporting that tired old Party, and at worst a front organisation.

But then Mr Sunny Delight's munchkin Aaron Murin-Heath went a little bit, er, over-defensive in response to this little piece putting a sore Green loser in his place…

For once read the comments, and Mr God Bless the Liberal Blogosphere for riding to the rescue of a soft toy under fire!

Of course, once Hard Labour went back into opposition, it was safe for Mr Sunny to have his moral high ground cake and eat it, so he slunk back into the party and his fabulous media career™ was quietly wound up.

Meaning my Diary has outlived his PROJECT. So yay!

#5 Defeating the Mr Master

Then there was that time when Doctor Who's the Master would have taken over the Fluffy Diary (and the World) but for one elementary error…

#4 Nick Clegg, his hand on my bottom

It remains a source of GREAT PRIDE in this LIBERAL Liberal Democrat Party that no matter how silly or bizarre it might have seemed to have a soft toy in their midst passing satirical comment on their goings on, at every level up and down the Party from grassroots to grandees they have been so willing to talk and listen and take part in bloggers' conversations.

And no one moreso than the Party Leader, Nick Clegg, who really took to the bloggers interviewers and talked to us on many occasions.

Here are two of my favourite, first from early on when he'd just been elected leader and made time for us and our doughnuts between the "serious" press…

…and second just a few years later from inside the Cabinet Office as Deputy Prime Minister.

I'm particularly grateful to Ming Cambell who, when HE was leader, was the first to talk to the bloggers, and to Chris Huhne who, during that leadership contest, was so easy to persuade to talk, perhaps because he as the insurgent was as much the outsider as we were. They got us going, and thanks to them Nick saw how important it was to open up a channel to talk to friends inside the Party. And Danny and Vice and Ed and others all followed.

#3 The Day of Meeting the Doctor (and all his chums)

But it's not ALL been about the politics. In fact there's been quite a bit of Doctor Who over the years, what with the telly series actually coming back to the telly pretty much in sync with my Diary. Obviously.

The highpoint for many a fan was the fiftieth anniversary and the Day of the Doctor, which we celebrated – of course – but by remembering ALL the eras of Dr Woo and all the many starts big and small who have given us so much to enjoy and think about over the first fifty years.

Some of whom even got the pleasure of meeting ME!

#2 I am Blogger of the Year. Oh yeah!

And so, obviously, the first thing the Liberal Democrats did on getting into government for the first time in EIGHTY years was to give a prize to a stuffed elephant. I was, I have to say, taken somewhat by surprise.

Of course, it didn't QUITE work out first time around… or second… or third or fourth… but, as the saying goes, if at first you don't succeed… throw a TANTRUM!

So this is ME winning Blogger of the Year in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, (FINALLY!) 2010!

#1 Daddies Get Married

Because THIS is why I write my Very Fluffy Diary. This is why I keep telling you all this Liberal stuff.

Big Gay Wedding

Because The Liberal Democrats changed the World. For the better.

Remember that. Always.

Day 5229: A Thank You to the Liberal Democrats

Sunday:

And now, a very special episode of...

...and just to be clear:

 Daddy Alex did all the hard work!

 Daddy Richard just pulled faces!


 Run VT!




Happy LibDemiversay!

Day 4628: Millennium the Bridesmaid

Monday:

an elephant is announced

Might want to keep 26th October 2014 free.

Just sayin'...

Cheers!

(More from Daddy Alex here!)

Day 4308: FREEDOM FROM CONFORMITY –Richard Flowers' Message to LGBT+ Lib Dems

Wednesday:

The Liberal Democrats have always been at the forefront of the LGBT+ movement for equal rights, pressing the argument forwards in the face of Conservative reactionaries and Labour half-hearted compromise and backsliding.

As one of Millennium Elephant's famous gay daddies, I'd want us to be back at that cutting edge, with an out and proud voice on FPC scrutinising every policy to make sure our communities are never left out where we should be included and that there's a proper section in the manifesto on what Lib Dems are going to do next to keep pressing for true equality. With the party’s emphasis on “Fairness” in the last few years increasingly focused on economic fairness rather than more difficult to measure LGBT+ issues, someone needs to keep an eye out, and I’m volunteering, if I’m elected!

I'd want to consult with LGBT+ Lib Dems and take your lead on which policy areas are of most importance. Personally, my concerns focus on: the problems of bisexual invisibility; on how we can widen the debate around marriage and civil partnerships to include polyamorous relationships; and on the needs of the trans community, how government should be opening doors not putting barriers in the way. Meanwhile, there are some bad laws on the statutes, put there by Labour as much as the Tories, making people criminal where no harm has been done. Those laws need to be repealed.

It's clear that Liberal Democrats in government have taken us closer to equality, if mostly in little steps rather than great strides. The one great stride we have made is marriage equality – which is why at the next election those timid late converts Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband will both be claiming credit, despite one’s Party having opposed marriage equality for thirteen years while in power and the other's Party still being largely opposed as their recent Conference revealed. We need to be clear that this has happened because of us, Liberal Democrats with Lynne Featherstone leading the charge in the Home Office, now followed by Jo Swinson and supported by Nick Clegg and the entire Party.

There are powerful forces gathering against us – not all of them malign, but sometimes we do need the courage to call a bigot a bigot. Freedom to love should not offend anyone, but if someone is determined to take offence, that does not and cannot give them a right to prevent other people's love.




[LGBT+ Lib Dems asked candidates standing for Federal elections to submit 150-200 words on what they would do to support the LGBT+ community. Being me, I wrote 400. So, presented here is the "extended cut" version.]

Day 4181: Dog-in-the-Manger Collars

Tuesday:

The Church of Ingrates – Britain's built-in band of god botherers – have issued their response to the Equal Marriage consultation and it goes thus:

"We have a duty to provide a marriage to anyone who asks for marriage, which, er, we're breaking at the moment when it comes to gay daddies.

"And if you make us do our duty then we'll stop doing marriages for anyone! How's THAT for a threat to marriage!"

Apparently this is a threat to the ESTABLISHMENT of the Church. Which is supposed to be a bad thing for some reason.

Day 4081: Man Who Has Never Seen Snow Demands Right to Define Skiing*

Sunday:



*Well, that's about as silly as a frock-wearing man who has vowed never to marry insisting against all sense and evidence that only he can define marriage.



Look, I'm just THRILLED to learn that the concept of HUMAN RIGHTS has penetrated the previously-entirely-inured-to-new-thinking sanctums of the Eternal Apostolic Catholic Church, prop Mr the Pope, but I think someone needs to inform the Holy Father's representative in Scotland, Mr Cardinal Keith – the aforementioned man in frock – that he can't just go making them up.

That's a little bit NAUGHTY.

Verging on the THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.

For starters, it's a lovely idea that everyone has a Human Right to a mummy and a daddy – although I'm not completely sure that Mr the Pope will be okay with Cardinal Keith deciding that the immaculate conception was a breach of Mr Jesus's human rights.

Nor, I'm afraid, does article sixteen define "marriage" as between men and women. What it ACTUALLY says is that "men and women have a human right to marriage". So it does say that men have a right to marriage and women have a right to marriage. But it doesn't say that you need one of each to practise that right. Which is fair enough because some people – including some Christians and some Muslims – have believed in having, for example, more than one woman in a marriage. And we couldn't go condemning people just for their weird religious beliefs, could we!

On the other fluffy foot, I do not think that Cardinal Keith has entirely thought through his insistence that it is not for the State to define marriage. After all, the Vatican is a State.

Day 4045: Dr Sentimoo's Birthday Message for Daddy!

Saturday:



Welcome to extreme old age, Daddy Richard (he's like four BILLION and one, or something).

And what better way to start a special day than by listening to the news that the Arch-bigot of York [warning: contains Telegraph] is once again trying to IMPOSE his BIBLICAL view on gay daddies getting married.

Putting the DICK into DICTATOR, the purple-frocked DESPOT says: "I don't think it is the role of the state."

So, you'll be giving up that SEAT in the LEGISLATURE then, your worship?

Quick check for the COMPLETELY-DETACHED-FROM-REALITY: WE are behaving like a DICTATORSHIP because the Government ACCEPTS the will of the people and PROTECTS the interests of minorities like gay daddies.

And YOU want people to obey your commands?

There's some old proverb about "sticks" and "eyes", I don't really remember… maybe a biblical scholar like the Arch-bigot could remind me.

(And if it's the BIBLICAL TRADITION he wants, then I'm sure he won't mind standing still while we STONE him for WRITING an ARTICLE on the SABBATH.)



And then we hear, on the radio, the Ever-so-Reverend Richard Communard cooing over atheist philosopher, and designer of the All New Tower of Babel, Mr Alain de Fluffy-Bottom for his new book "All the Good Things you can get out of Religion".

"The thing about religions is that they allow you to organise doing good," suggests Mr de Fluffy-Bottom.

"Ooh," perks up the Reverend Communard, "do you think it's that we're lacking this "organised goodness" that leads to such OUTRAGES like city bankers and their bonuses?"

Because thank HEAVEN we would never get a bunch as CORRUPT and MURDEROUS as the BORGIAs or the MEDICIs creaming off riches at the top of the pile under and organised religion. And thank the LORD that a criminal fraternity like the MAFIA could never arise in a GOD-FEARING country. If only GODLESS Britain could benefit from such a society!

More seriously, it's clear that HUMAN BEANS like to make ORGANISATIONS (whether that is TRIBES or CITIES or CORPORATIONS or complicated belief systems involving INVISIBLE UNICORNS. Or whatever.)

These organisations are ALL in some way "organised goodness" and they are ALL subject to being CORRUPTED by wicked people. This is why Liberals believe in WORKING TOGETHER with others but remain WARY of power structures and favour DISBURSING power to people.

The goodness of religion is that it brings people together, but the DANGER is that it hands the POWER TO BULLY to people like Dr Sentimoo.
.

Day 3445: Inlaws and Outlaws

Monday:


There's an excellent opinion-piece by Mr Ed Fordham, on Liberal Democrat Voice, about the Chief of Stonewall and the case of Mr David Laws.

Back in 1997, when former Prime Monster Lord Blairimort received a million pounds from Mr Bernie Ecclestone – in return using his influence to get Formula One racing exempted from the ban on advertising tobacco in sport – he got away it, appearing on television with the excuse:

"I'm a pretty straight kind of a guy"

Clearly, that's not an excuse that Mr David was going to be allowed to use.

Okay, that's a terrible, terrible gag.

But there's also a big, big point there: a one million quid bribe that clearly was for the benefit of Hard Labour with obvious corrupt benefit to the man giving the bung – no repercussions; forty thousand quid questionable claim for an expense that all other MPs are allowed to claim – job gone and career over.

Oh yes, times have changed.


People responding to the David Laws case seem to fall into two quite distinct categories:

Category A: he "fiddled" his expenses and "ripped off" the taxpayer to the tune of forty thousand quid – burn the witch!

Category B: he was entitled to claim for a second home but (deliberately) misdeclared the allowance claim (which was both wrong and stupid) because he wanted to conceal his private life – come back David, all is forgiven!

Let me be quite clear: I am firmly and PROUDLY in Category B.

Yes, I'm biased: this is a great big WIN for the forces of EVIL who want to damage the coalition, regardless of how good or bad it is for the country, because they are scared of the new politics and what it might mean for their vested interests, and I hate that.

But I'm really getting quite BORED not to mention CROSS with people in Category A who think that "he fiddled forty thousand quid" trumps all arguments. Your moral fervour to crucify a man who told a foolish lie puts you on the side of seriously bad people who want to totally scr– bad-word you over, and that's just INCREDIBLY STUPID!


To you people in Category A, I have to ask: do you think that an MP should have to foot the bill for two homes at once, one in London and one in their constituency? If YOUR job required that you work away from home for long periods, would you mind if they expected you to buy another house?

You might think that MPs should not get an allowance AT ALL for having to run two homes. But that would be saying that only RICH people who can afford to be MPs can be elected; that would DISENFRANCHISE a whole lot of the population. It would not be good for democracy and it would not be fair. Ah ha! people then say, but Mr David Laws IS rich already, he COULD afford to be an MP – that's not the point; the point is that the allowance is to make a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD so that people who are rich OR poor can stand for Parliament equally easily.

So, if you don't accept that, you're not really a democrat and our conversation has to be over.

Perhaps you think that POOR people should get the allowances but not rich people, that there should be some sort of Parliamentary MEANS TESTING. Which would be novel. And certainly not something I've ever heard anyone saying BEFORE this case came up. Though of course you woldn't be trying to fit an argument to the case after you've already made your mind up. And for that matter, where are the protests that Mr Balloon and Mr Oboe get these allowances? Or Hard Labour's Shaun Woodwood or Ms Barbara Folly? They're all millionaires, too. And for that matter, why stop at allowances: why not say MPs who are already wealthy shouldn't get PAID any more.

I think it's fairly IMPORTANT that equal pay for equal work is the proper way to treat people, no matter what they are doing, and that creating different classes of MP depending on your level of contempt and envy is probably a quite BAD IDEA.

So if you DO accept that it is fair enough for MPs to get an allowance for another home, and for all MPs to get the same treatment of their allowance, then you really have to say what your problem IS.

Why might it be WRONG to pay your rent to your PARTNER? Well, I can answer that one: you might be using the payment of rent to disguise the fact that there isn't really a cost at all. If your partner OWNS the property outright, you could be fixing it up for them to make some money for nothing by pretending to rent.

But that ISN'T what was happening here: there was a GENUINE cost of mortgage and bills to pay and Mr David was contributing his SHARE. In fact, as has been pointed out a LOT, if he'd only owned up to being one of a COUPLE Mr David could have claimed for the WHOLE LOT and got a lot MORE money, quite legitimately.

So how can it be a "rip off" to pay forty thousand pounds (over a number of years, remember) for a GENUINE cost that we agree that it's fair enough the taxpayer should pay for?

Essentially, it MUST have been legitimate to make the claim, but the WAY that he made it was wrong.

Now, I know that Ms Diane Abbott-and-Portillo is one among several who have said: "well if a benefit claimant made a false claim – even if they really deserved the money – then THEY'D have to pay it back and might end up in PRISON".

To which I have to say: well that's because the BENEFIT SYSTEM is really, really BAD-WORD-Y. And that is just plain WRONG too.

People should get what they are OWED, not "as little as we can get away with paying them because they filled in box 137b on form Q wrong"!

And if people are going to start flinging accusations of HYPOCRISY about, "one rule for MPs and one rule for benefit claimants", can I just say that as a member of the Party that has been IN GOVERNMENT for the last thirteen years, Ms Abbott-and-Portillo bears rather more responsibility for the benefit system being really, really BAD-WORD-Y than Mr David does!


So, if you're going to put yourself in Category A then either you must think that it would be better for the system to exclude the less well off from standing; or you think that rich people should get different treatment based on envy; or you think that using technicalities to make a profit is legitimate if it's the taxpayer on the receiving end.

Because the only OTHER possibility is that you think it's something to do with SEXUALITY.


Personally, I think it's pretty darn OBVIOUS that it's something to do with sexuality, that this was a case of QUEER-BASHING by a National Newspaper.

And frankly I'm pretty OUTRAGED that some people are now saying that mentioning Mr David's sexuality at all is some kind of EXCUSE.

Without sexuality, this just isn't a story. If Mr David had fallen in love with a women, he'd have declared it with no problems and no one would have batted an eyelid.

Maybe if he hadn't been brought up in a strongly Catholic family; if he hadn't started out life in the screamingly homophobic Eighties (when Mr Michael Cashman got regular bricks though his window for being "the gay" on EastEnders); if he hadn't worked in the ultra-macho environment of the City; if that hadn't been the decade when the viciously hateful Murdock-led press were out to "out" any vicar or teacher or MP they could… maybe, MAYBE then he wouldn't have been so wound up by this as to have gotten himself into this situation in the first place.

But you know what: it would STILL have been a GROSS INTRUSION into an intensely PERSONAL and PRIVATE matter to blab Mr David's sexuality all over the front pages.

NOBODY should be FORCED to stand up and talk about their SEX LIVES. I hate to have to mention it, but that's what the NAZIS did with those PINK TRIANGLES.

If you don't want to "come out" then you shouldn't have to. It's a simple case of FREEDOM FROM CONFORMITY. What you tell and who you tell is YOUR CHOICE and NOBODY ELSE'S.

That is why someone like Mr Bean Bradshaw is so VERY, VERY WRONG in what he tweeted on twitter:

clegg statement re laws nonsense. why should anyone in Britain today feel ashamed to acknowledge they're gay

Why should anyone HAVE to "acknowledge they're gay"? Typical New Labour assumption that the State has a "right" to know anything it wants and that people have a "duty" to be fine with that because OBVIOUSLY new Labour have made all prejudice and hate crimes vanish. Sigh.

We have a HUMAN RIGHT TO PRIVACY, don't we; why can't that actually mean that our privacy is kept PRIVATE?


But what is much, much worse is when someone like Mr Ben Summerschool, chief executive of gay rights* organisation Stonewall, plays along with the QUEER BASHERS.

(*terms and conditions apply, may not include bi-, trans-, poly- or any other rights)

Just a day after Mr David's outing, in a piece for the Independent on Sunday, Mr Summerschool wrote:

Mr Laws seems to have been using his sexual orientation as a bit of a smokescreen to explain away a controversial expenses claim

But that begs the question why was the claim "controversial"? Oh yes, because he didn't declare that the rent was paid to his partner. And why didn't he declare who his partner was? Oh yes, it was to do with sexual orientation.

In other words, what Mr Summerschool writes is: Mr Laws seems to have been using his sexual orientation as a bit of a smokescreen to explain away an expenses claim to do with his sexual orientation.

When you put it like that, when you can see that this makes NO SENSE in logic or language, you realise that it can only be POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED ATTACK.

But this is the clincher:

If he had made no claim, then none of this would be in the public domain now

In other words, a gay man who does not want to come out has to accept worse treatment than other people doing the same work. That is discrimination, pure and simple.

And that is why Mr Ben Summerschool is NOT FIT to be chief executive of Stonewall, an organisation that is SUPPOSED to campaign for the PROTECTION of gay daddies and NOT the discriminatory treatment of them.

Daddy Richard was – we have to admit – in a state of some FURY already about this whole business, but when he read Mr Summerschool's diatribe in the Sunday Independent he totally blew an upper head gasket, terminating his monthly donation to Stonewall with, as they say, extreme prejudice, and dashing off the following e-mail to the organisation:

Dear Sirs,

Your Chief Executive, Mr Ben Summerskill writes about the Outing of Liberal Democrat minister, Mr David Laws in today's Independent.

Mr Summerskill asserts that David Laws' resignation was about money and not about the hounding of a gay man from office.

Mr Laws could clearly have claimed the same money (in fact possibly even more money) if he had been a married heterosexual man or if his landlord had been a woman, so this is clearly not about the money. But because the other person was a man Mr Laws would have been required to be treated differently. If you do not see that that is about unequal treatment, then I no longer know what your organisation is for.

Mr Summerskill also makes a number of snide remarks and innuendoes about Mr Laws and the Liberal Democrats in general that one would not expect outside the writing of some of the so-called right-wing commentators. If that is his view, then I do not see how Mr Summerskill can be considered to be a campaigner for equal treatment for gay and lesbian men and women, and frankly I find that he is, and therefore you are, supporting a homophobic attack by the Telegraph. I will have nothing further to do with any organisation that employs him.

I am therefore cancelling my direct debit to Stonewall immediately.

Yours in extreme anger with you and your whole team

Richard Flowers.

We have not yet received any reply.

But that was all a bit OVER THE TOP, so let me finish by once again endorsing the rather more TEMPERATE response from the MUCH CALMER Mr Ed.

An excellent piece, well written, sir!



Declaration of Interest: Daddy Alex knows Mr David slightly; Daddy Richard knows Mr Jamie slightly. No of us knew there was anything between them. And you know what, it was none of our business then and it's none of our business now.
.

Day 3314: Holocaust Memorial Day – You May Avert Your Gays

Wednesday:


It's UNSUBTLE isn't it, to have to bring up the Equality Bill when we're remembering the ultimate HORRIBLE consequences of NOT just treating people as people. And yet here we are: STILL not learning the lessons of history.

Let's be fair, six MILLION Jewish people being murdered for NO REASON is way more than the quarter of a million Gypsy/Romany people being murdered for the identical NO REASON and the quarter of a million differently-abled people being murdered for not fitting into a BONKERS and completely-ignorant-of-how-evolution-works EUGENIC stereotype and the we-don't-actually-know-how-many gay people murdered that we DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW because when the surviving Jews and Romany and Polish Slavs and black people and prisoners of war and the rest got liberated the Allies DIDN'T liberate the gay mommies and daddies because being gay was STILL A CRIME!!!!!

But it shouldn't be the SIZE of your holocaust that matters, but the fact that it happened AT ALL. That some people could pick a community to blame and vilify and ultimately destroy is WRONG. IT doesn't matter whether that is a community of millions or one of hundreds. Every single person is uniquely different and that should be a reason for CELEBRATION not an excuse to put people in boxes. And then LITERALLY put some of them in boxes.

So now, the much trumpeted Liberaling of Britain revealed by the British Social Attitudes Survey, shows that since we've gone from the heady days of Conservatory Section 28 and Colin and Barry on EastEnders to swinging modern Civil Partnerships and, er, Christian and Syed on EastEnders so the public have swung from two in three agreeing that cuddles between people of the same gender is always wrong to ONE in three agreeing that cuddles between people of the same gender is always wrong… oh, we have a LOOOOOOOONG way to go.

And yet STILL the Bishops of the Church of England whine on about wanting SPECIAL RIGHTS so they don't have to follow the same laws as everyone else, just because they BELIEVE that they have a right to be NASTY. Suppose they demanded the right to fire people just because they weren't WHITE enough. No one, but no one would give them even a SECOND before ticking them right off. But if they want the special right to treat people as second class because they aren't heteronormative enough…

Sigh.

Steps towards treating people AS people have been made, sometimes in the face of the government kicking and screaming and having to be dragged to the European court and made to behave like a grown up. And, mark you, that's the CURRENT Hard Labour Government, never mind the preceding Conservatories. But it's FRAGILE and the forces of Conservatism are bringing their full evil might to bear. It would be all too easy for Mr Balloon – with his history of throwing bones to his right wing nutters, and his alliance with homophobic Parties in the EU Parliament – to cave and bring in Section 28 II this time it's personal… again!

So the BEST way to remember the Holocaust and all its victims is to ask yourself this: what are you doing to stop it ever happening again?


.

Day 2751: One Lone Heckler

Sunday:


Bishop Gene Roddenberry (not to be confused with Star Trek's Tom Robinson!) is the ONLY gay bishop in the WORLD. Because there has never, ever, EVER been a gay bishop before, oooh no, and certainly none of the eight or nine hundred OTHER Anglican bishops could possible sing with the other choir, no, not a single one.

He is also the ONLY bishop to be excluded from the Beardy-Weirdy of Canterbury's big religious meeting.

IRONIC then, that he came along uninvited to speak anyway… only for a mental-fundieist to come along to HIS religious meeting uninvited and try to speak anyway?

Here's the DIFFERENCE, though.

After the hard-liners heard that Bishop Roddenberry wasn't even invited to Lambeth… they refused to come anyway because the Archpillock hadn't excommunicated and/or burned him.

After the young protester had been persuaded to leave, his heckles drowned out by the congregation SINGING, Bishop Roddenberry, moved to tears by the support of his flock, asked them to pray for him.

Of course, you know what THEY are thinking: crying in church… how GAY is that.


Earlier in the day, Bishop Roddenberry had been on Mr Andy Marrmite's sofa with Dame Ian McKellen.


Asked about the way the Church was getting its knickers in a twist, the bishop admitted that he thought it was probably a MISTAKE for them to talk about gay ISSUES and deliberately exclude the one openly gay VOICE.

He also told the story of how he'd met with a group of young people troubled by sexuality, and how although only one of them was a person of faith, every single one of them knew about that bit in LEVITICUS – you know, where the Bible compares gay daddies to a prawn cocktail. Or something. Seriously, though, how is Bishop Roddenberry supposed to tell them that Mr God is the "god of love" when they all "know" that "He" is going round saying people are abominations?

"Religious people, Muslim, Jews, Christians, we are responsible for that," confessed the Bishop, "And it's going to take religious voices to undo the hatred that comes from those words."

And it was interesting to hear the way HE wanted the Church to bring people of diverse backgrounds TOGETHER, whether they are different genders or colours or sexualities, compared with the way the other side want to use it to keep people APART.

But it took Dame Ian to diagnose the problem:

"Just looking at it from the outside, the church thinks it's got a particular problem with some articles, perhaps not of faith but of, written in the Bible that they refer to. And I can remember the armed forces not that long ago saying they had a particular problem - it was all to do with discipline. Well it's just been discovered there is no discipline problems when you let gay people into the military. And schools too. Well we've got a particular problem.

"The particular problem they've all got and share is HOMOPHOBIA."

And he quoted Mr Thomas Jefferson who said "One might as well require a man to wear still this jacket which fitted him when a boy as for civilised society to suffer under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors".

"And you know," said Dame Ian, "we DO have barbarous ancestors, in politics, in religion, in the military, in every part of our lives."

Never mind Bishop Roddenberry, I think GANDALF should be head of the Church of England. He even has his own BEARD. (NB: NOT a Mrs Gandalf!)

Day 2748: Religious Right trumps Gay Rights

Thursday:


Or do they?

The news that the Registrar who won't marry gay daddies because of her religion, Ms Lillian Ladle, has won her case should be treated with a little bit of caution.

She CLAIMS that this is a "victory for religious liberty". But is it?

It is important to recognise that Ms Ladle's complaint was that she had been BULLIED about her refusal to comply with the terms of her job (namely, provide marriage for anyone who asks).

Would things have turned out the same way if the council had merely politely required her to do her job?

(It should be said that the Council denied abusing Ms Ladle, indeed said that some of her gay co-workers felt abused by HER, but that was not the finding of the Tribunal.)

We should also notice that her job has recently CHANGED, from being effectively freelance – where she could do swapsies to avoid doing her job if it involved the no-doubt onerous task of pronouncing two gay daddies husband and husband – to working directly for the council where she was forced to make a direct refusal. So it's not completely fair to say that she should just lump it, when she previously had a legitimate loophole that didn't DENY anyone a marriage while allowing her to get on with finding it ICKY.

We might want to remember, though, that people CHOOSING the registry office for their marriage have DECIDED that they do not want religion sticking its oar into their big day. Is this in fact the sort of job that a person with "religious objections" is really cut out for?

"Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs," she says, and this is TRUE.

But equally, religious freedoms should not be used as an excuse to deny people equal treatment just because you have a personal prejudice.

And we can't get around the fact that refusing to treat gay daddies equally for no other reason than BECAUSE they are gay daddies IS a prejudice. Ms Ladle might not like being TOLD that she is homophobic, but unfortunately that is exactly what she IS.

Day 2717: Irises are Poisonous / Spliffs make you Stupid / Heinz in the Soup

Good news for any gay daddies fearing repatriation to the Theocratic Nuthouse of Iran!

According to the Hopeless Secretary, Ms Jacquie Spliff, there is NO DANGER of being executed to death by the religious police, so long as you remember to STAY DISCREETLY IN THE CLOSEST.

Clearly, the 145 people since 1979 who HAVE been murdered by the Revolutionary Iranian State for the so-called "crime" of being gay must be just KICKING themselves for overlooking this simple precaution. Or they would be if they weren't totally DEAD!

Only a cynical person could suspect Ms Spliff of looking for LOOPHOLES in the ban on deporting people to places where they might get killed.

On the other fluffy foot, she might just be being incurably THICK!


Meanwhile, this reminds me that, a little while ago, Ms Jennie asked me to look into a story from Northern Ireland, reported in the Pink News and picked up by Liberal Conspiracy about Ms Iris "Poisonous" Robinson.

Poison-Iris is the wife of the first minister of Northern Ireland, and holds down two jobs, being both a Member of Parliament AND a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly (except on days when she is suspended for using "unparliamentarily language") for Strangleford. This doesn't keep her too busy to be a born again Christian as well, though.

Now – remembering that I am a militant atheist baby elephant and may have got this wrong – I seem to recall a story that according to the Bible was told by Mr Jesus. It was about a Good Samaritan. The Samaritans were a tribe of people who were at odds with the Jews and had different religious beliefs. Nevertheless, when the Good Samaritan discovered a Jewish person beaten up in the road, he did all he could to help the victim, in spite of their differences.

Funnily enough, this story is about someone who got beaten up too: Mr Stephen Scott, who was a victim of a QUEER-BASHING. And did Poison-Iris do all she could to help… well, no. She said that Mr Scott should try and get cured of being gay.

"I have a very lovely psychiatrist who works with me in my offices and his Christian background is that he tries to help homosexuals trying to turn away from what they are engaged in.

"And I have met people who have turned around to become heterosexual."

Well, firstly he's NOT a "lovely psychiatrist" because psychiatrists do NOT say that being a gay daddy is a disorder and so wouldn't try to cure you. In fact, the Royal College of Psychiatrists EXPLICITLY says that it is NOT a disorder. Which means that this person is a FRAUD, passing himself off as a psychiatrist.

And second, although there is no reason to think that something as FLUID as a person's orientation could not change over time, and BISEXUALITY might express itself more strongly one way and then another, you almost certainly HAVEN'T met anyone who's "turned around to become heterosexual", and more likely have met some SERIOUSLY UNHAPPY people with a whole load of unnecessary guilt complexes and a complete absence of a healthy sex life.

Poison-Iris says that homosexuality makes her "sick" and "nauseous". It sounds like SHE is the one who needs a CURE!

Nor is this a ONE-OFF, as her interjection in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Debate shows.

"Can she [the Minister] envisage, down the road, a child going to primary school and being collected by two females or two males, and the bullying and abuse to which those children will be exposed…"

And why would they BE bullied? Surely only because prejudice is being perpetuated by lady-harpies like Poison-Iris.

"…or going into their parents' bedroom, as is natural for a child to do, and finding two women or two men making love?"

And that would cause just as much blushing all round as if it was one man and one woman. Or one man or one woman on their own. And what do you mean it's NATURAL to walk in on your daddies' bedroom without asking? How RUDE! Besides, I am fairly sure that the technology of LOCKABLE DOORS has reached Northern Ireland… are the members of the Deeply Unpleasant Party just a bit BACKWARDS?

And THIS LADY, dear readers, is one of the NINE VOTES that the Government relied upon to get detention without trial thorough the House of Commons.


Mr Scott, now TWICE a victim after his mugging and then mugging again by Poison-Iris, had previously taken an OVERDOSE because he couldn't cope with being gay. How did Poison-Iris help him? He said that her remarks had made his life "hell".

Apparently more than one-hundred people have reported Poison-Iris to the police for her remarks. So now, the police are to investigate whether she has committed a HATE CRIME.


And speaking of COMPLAINTS, apparently more than TWO-hundred people found the following TOO SHOCKING to show to children… even though mayonnaise adverts are SO PERVERSE (oh, apparently it's the high sugar, salt and fat content) that they are ALREADY banned from being shown to children.

So here are some men kissing to cheer everybody up!

Day 2723: The Gays are Getting Married – World Fails to End (again!)

Sunday:


WE know a SONG about this, don't we daddy… cue HootTube…



It seems like happy occasions are breaking out ALL OVER.

In California, they are queuing round the block to get hitched, thanks to a (State) Supreme Court decision overturning the ban on gays getting married.

First to join in happy union were heroic veteran ladygays Ms Del Martin and Ms Phyllis Lyon. Back in the DARK AGES of 1955, when Americaland was wracked with anti-pinko WITCH HUNTS, Ms Del and Ms Phyllis helped to found the Daughters of Bilitis, recognised as the first lesbian rights group in America.

Also taking the "oath of federation" will be Mr George Takei, star of Star Trek and hero of Heroes.

I'm sure he will be beaming up the aisle on his happy day. Beaming… you know, because he is happy… no?

Meanwhile the Church of England is DELIGHTED… it says "angered" here, but that is no doubt a misprint… DELIGHTED with the news that a vicar married a vicar… to another vicar!

(Look this CAN'T be as confusing as that business with the Lesbians suing the Lesbians over who gets to be Lesbians!)

The coverage is even funnier in the Torygraph with liberal use of illiberal inverted commas around the words gay and wedding and gay wedding and blessing and the rest! Like they don't know how gay air-quotes are!)

The Wedding took place in the church of St Bartholomew the Great, made FAMOUS in the film "Four Weddings and a Funeral for the Established Church".

Messages of congratulation have flooded in from all over the world.

The Bishop of Winchester, the Right Reverend Michael Smoking-Joynt expressed his hopes that "clearly flouting Church guidelines and will exacerbating divisions within the Anglican Communion" would bring them lasting happiness.

While from Uganda, the Archbishop Henry Orombi wished them every joy of their "blasphemous" and "shocking" ceremony. Lovely.


In fact, the only MISERABLE people were those two old-men-in-frocks: the Beardy Weirdy of Canterbury and the Archpillock of York Dr Sentimoo. They expressed their "regrets".


"The Church of England is supposed to make people DEPRESSED not happy!" they said!



Sadly, I also have to tell you that Mr Matt Lucas and his partner Mr Kevin McGee have split up. Even with gay marriage comes gay divorce. I hope they are both all right!

Day 2502: Found Guilty? Don't Worry – the Labour's Mayor's Office will back you!

Wednesday:


The Labour certainly stand by their CRIMINAL element.

No doubt you remember Ms Miranda Grell – found GUILTY of telling lies. The Labour have decided to fund her appeal, despite her own statement to the police admitting that she lied. She is reported as "suspended" from her job working for Deputy Mayor Ms Nicky Gavron – suspended as in NOT FIRED for being a convicted, self-admitted liar, then?

No doubt you remember Sir Ian Clone of Lord Blairimort – found GUILTY of putting the public in harm's way. The Labour's Mayor Mr Ken continues to stick by him, even though the TOOTHLESS London Assembly has passed a motion of no-confidence. Obviously the London Assembly was created by the Labour, so you can hardly expect them to have given any POWER to the democratically REPRESENTATIVE body, can you? (And how can Mr Ken claim to REPRESENT anyone if he IGNORES the views of anyone who disagrees with him?)

Ms Grell has put out a statement saying that she doesn't accept the court's judgement. So, scratch "law abiding" from her CV as well.

Her friends and family have started a campaign to overturn the court's verdict. They claim that they never heard any of the things she is meant to have said. Presumably they weren't in court then, when there was testimony from the people who INDEPENDENTLY reported her to hate-crime unit ALERT, or the further FIVE WITNESSES there to testify that she accused her opponent of sleeping with boys of 14, 15 or 16 or HER OWN LABOUR RUNNING MATE, Mr Nicholas Russell, who was "disgusted" by her attitude and also heard her claim her victim had a "fourteen-year-old Thai boyfriend."

No, apparently it's all some kind of RACIST CONSPIRACY. Hmmm, who EXACTLY is playing the RACE card, then?

In court, Ms Grell claimed that SHE was the victim… leading the prosecution barrister to label her a "fantasist".


And speaking of dangerous fantasists, Mr Ken continued to talk nonsense in support of his chum Sir Clone, claiming that there was a "Cynical campaign" against him.

The Cynics, founded by a pupil of Socrates, believed in leading a life of self-sufficiency and virtue, achieved by eschewing the false influences of wealth, fame or power. They reached the height of their influence in Roman times when their philosophy was honed down to responsibility and willpower.

Hmm, yes, they DO sound like the sort of people who would find Sir Clone's love of power without responsibility UTTERLY REPELLENT. On the other fluffy foot, I can't see them hanging around for two-thousand year JUST to campaign against HIM! Perhaps Mr Ken is thinking of someone else.

"Al-Qaeda must be laughing at us while we busy ourselves pillorying the police who keep us safe," said Mr Ken.

Well, no actually Mr Ken I suspect Al-Qaeda were laughing at us when the police started killing innocent Londoners for them.

If I believed for ONE SECOND Mr Ken's LUDICROUS claim that ONLY Sir Ian is competent to lead the Met then it would surely ON ITS OWN be a reason for Mr Ken himself to RESIGN IN SHAME for overseeing a police force composed of such incompetents.

I do NOT believe it! I think that there are MANY brave and capable people in the police and Mr Ken is NOT FIT to serve as Mayor if he is going to diss their talents like this!

It is about time that someone challenged the Labour in their complacency and arrogance.

PS:

One person who IS calling the Labour to account – in a small way – is Liberal Democrat Mr David "I am the" Laws. (We met him yesterday while on our way to see Mr Huhney-Monster!)

Mr David had CAUGHT OUT the Prime Monster. Mr Frown was giving a speech on education last week, and his office contacted the local paper in Yeovil, Mr David's constituency, to say that a local school would be mentioned – with quote from the speech – and they might like to give Mr Frown some jolly nice free publicity please.

Except, when he gave the speech – gasp – no mention of the school.

And then Mr David checked around and GUESS WHAT… several OTHER local papers in different constituencies had ALSO received a note from the Prime Monster's office, ALSO telling them that a local school would be mentioned, and ALSO giving the same quote. Only the names were changed to protect the GUILTY LABOUR SECRET STALINS in Number Ten.

It is so difficult to hold the Government to account when they have NO REGARD for the TRUTH.

But we said very well done to Mr David for at least catching them this time.

Day 2485: Poll of Poles

Sunday:


Bye bye "Law and Justice" in Poland.

Of course it is NOT "Anarchy in Poland", as Mr Balloon might say, but the election of a new Polish Government following the collapse of the right-wing coalition that has been in power and generally scaring everybody for the last two years.

In Polish, "Law and Justice" is "Prawo i Sprawiedliwość" or "PiS" for short, and who could take the... Mickey out of THAT?

Despite having roots in the Solidarity Trade Union from the Communist era, (or perhaps BECAUSE of their roots in the Solidarity) PiS policies are based heavily on CATHOLIC TEACHINGS and ANTI-COMMUNISM.

You might say that "Law and Justice" are about unjust laws. They are not just right-wing (which the new lot are, too), they are bullying, illiberal and authoritarian. And religious bigots to boot.

In fact, their agenda of cutting taxes whilst, increasing prison sentences, and blaming Europe for everything that has gone wrong sounds EERILY FAMILIAR from somewhere.

Of course, the main difference from Mr Balloon's Conservatories is in their attitude to GAY DADDIES – the PiS still say what they think; Mr Balloon likes to keep his lip buttoned about his voting record these days. As it happens, the logo of the PiS is an eagle with a crown on; while the logo of Mr Balloon is a TWO-FACED SNAKE-IN-THE-GRASS! [R: surely, mighty English Oak?!]

Polish soon-to-be-ex-Prime Monster Mr Jarosław Kaczyński has said:

"The affirmation of gay daddies will lead to the downfall of civilization. We can't agree to it!"

And if you think HE'S a fruit-loop, you should see his allies in the minority off-the-scale right-wing "League of Polish Families" party! Their youth movement the Hitler All-Polish Youth attended the Warsaw Gay Pride… in order to throw eggs and stones and bottles. The Warsaw Gay Prides was of course banned in 2005 by the then Mayor, none other than… Mr Coleslaw Kaczyński.

(I am not sure that linking the Polish Government to the Hitler Youth will go down TOO WELL – since Krazy Mr Coleslaw has also TASTEFULLY demanded extra votes in the EU because of all the Poles who were killed by the Germans in the World War part two.)

The big winners in the election were "Civic Platform" with 40% of the votes, compared to 32% for PiS.

"Civic Platform" aka "Platforma Obywatelska" or "PO" is a centre-right Telytubby party whose policies include flat taxes, Trade Union reform and privatisations, but also improved higher education, decentralisation to local government and independence for the Bank of Poland. Bizarrely they also want to swap a fair votes system for a "First Pass the Port" one.

Which looks a lot like what Mr Balloon would write if he was asked to write a manifesto for the Liberal Democrats. You know: nuts!


You may prefer the Democratic Party (PD) who are members of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party. Their policies include flat taxes too, but also a concentration on improving education and job opportunities and expanding health care without privatisation.

On the other fluffy foot, they can only muster a tiny percentage of the popular vote; they contested the 2007 election as part of the "Left and Democrats" (Lewica i Demokraci) coalition, the grouping that came third, but will probably still be confined to opposition as the Civc Platform with 209 seats will only need the 31 seats of the Christian Democratic Polish Peoples Party to form a majority in parliament.


The European Union may decide to welcome this result as they will be relieved and grateful not to have to cope with an ARGUMENTATIVE and OBSTRUCTIONIST Prime Monster, demanding special treatment and exemptions in every treaty and threatening to use the veto. At least, not ANOTHER one.

Day 2376: Ex-ex-gay

Wednesday:


Listening to the The Today Programme before seven, my Daddy Richard caught an article about another of those WACKY Christian groups that claim that they can cure you of being a gay daddy.

They claim that being a gay daddy is not something that happens to you by nature, but a CHOICE.

What I want to know is: and that makes it a bad thing, why? And more importantly, that makes it ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS, why?

(Of course "business" might be the whole point – not that I am thinking about the Silver Ring Thing Kerching Limited
at all – but, after all, these groups can CHARGE you to cure you of the thing that is making you UNHAPPY. Mind you, when the thing that is ACTUALLY making you unhappy is a bunch of evangelistas whining on at you, you might find that a RESTRAINING ORDER is a more effective cure.)

This kind of group originally comes from America – oh, do not even PRETEND to be SURPRISED! – where they operate under the UMBRELLA name of "Exodus". This just shows what BAD Christians they are – if they knew their Bible properly, they would be called LEVITICUS!

Anyway, some of the gay daddies and mummies who have been given the brainwashing treatment and worked out that it had not worked were meeting last weekend at the "Ex-gay Survivors Conference" in California.

Among these self-styled ex-ex-gays were several of the ORIGINAL LEADERS of the Christian Exodus "Ex-gay" programme. And here are some video interviews where they talk about their experiences.

It seems to me – although I AM only a fluffy toy – that being a gay daddy is about emotions and hormones and glands and yucky stuff like that that you do not really have much CONSCIOUS choice over. Whereas being an interfering busy-body is about reading a four-thousand year old story and deciding that you will ignore all of the modern scientific evidence that shows that most of the made up story was wildly wrong and CHOOSING to use that as a reason for sticking your oar into other people's lives and making them miserable.

So if it is a question of making BAAAAAAD choices…

After all, do they not also say that you cannot be a Christian unless you CHOOSE to accept the little baby Jesus?

But I do not think that being a gay daddy is like being a Christian. No, being a Gay Daddy is usually something that you are born with (some people say you get it from your mummy) but sometimes you can – with a lot of effort – convert. Sometimes gay daddies stop practicing and become lapsed. They talk in their own special type of language. Oh, and they are quite CAMP. Yes, it is like being JEWISH!

So I think that I have the SOLUTION: being a Gay Daddy should be declared to be a RELIGION.

This would have many advantages: ABBA records would become Tax Deductible; Mr Graham Norton could do Fart for the Day on the The Today Programme; Anne Atkins would spontaneously combust… There can even be different SECTS: those who worship THE MADONNA… and those who think she's gone really downhill since marrying Guy Ritchie!

But the BIGGEST advantage is that people who make the LIFESTYLE CHOICE to be BONKERS BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIAN would have to do what ALL THE PROPER Christians do and preach love and tolerance to ALL religions. Hooray!

PS

If you feel you have experienced the WRATH OF GOD for reading this diary, please consult your local weather bureau and NOT the Church of England. Thank you.

PPR

If you were looking for eX eX eX Gay, you have come to the WRONG DIARY ENTIRELY!

Day 2339: The Gayness of Teletubbies

Monday:


Oh very fluffy dear, Poland!

We were all very happy when Poland got to join the European Union especially when it turned out that they were all hard-working, qualified plumbers which was just what we needed.

Unfortunately, it seems that the government that they have left running the country while they are all out has gone a little bit – and this is putting it kindly – strange.

They have already had a go at bringing in their own version of Nasty Old Conservatory policy, "Section 28".

And the MEPs of the Union have had to give them a stern warning over homophobia!

But now they have tipped over the edge into CRAZY-PERSON land. They are going to send the Teletubbies to the educational psychologists to see if they are TOO GAY!

You know, most NORMAL people when they first see the Teletubbies ask "what DRUGS were they on?" rather than "who could they be going to bed with?"

Still, if that is the sort of thing that you OBSESS about, then you end up reading it into EVERYTHING!

"I noticed he was carrying a woman's handbag," spokesperson for children's rights in Poland, Ewa Sowinska told a magazine. "At first, I didn't realise he was a boy."

And if you look VERY CLOSELY, Miss Winksa, you will see that he has a TELEVISION in his TUMMY and NO RUDE BITS!!

Why are you even TRYING to ascribe any kind of human behaviour to this big purple androgynous anthropomorphic walking television person?


Now, I could be wrong, but I think that someone has just been browsing the Wibbly Wobbly Web too much.

Do you remember the dear departed Mr Jerry Falwell? No? Perhaps you remember the racist, bigoted, homophobic, mad as a box of frogs, religious monomaniac Mr Jerry Falwell, co-founder of the Immoral Minority then…

GENUINE Mr Jerry quote: "This 'turn the other cheek' business is all well and good but it's not what Jesus fought and died for."

Well, I thought that I remembered this Tinky-Winky double-thinky from somewhere and GUESS WHAT: it was straight out of Mr Jerry's HAT:

"He is purple - the gay-pride colour; and his antenna is shaped like a triangle - the gay-pride symbol."

Yes, Mr Falwell, and you are SILVER – the colour of the TIN FOIL HAT people!


Daddy Alex reminds me that we have been watching "Children's Telly on Trial", and the story of "Ivor the Engine" creator Oliver Postgate. Back in the 1970's he too was accosted by "educational psychologists".

He told them they could pscht-i-cough pscht-i-cough off.

Day 2292: Doctor Who and the gay daddy agenda

Wednesday:


Mr Lawrence Miles published a review of last weekend’s Doctor Who, only to RECANT very quickly and remove it from his diary. Nevertheless, like all the words of Mr “Mad Larry” Miles, it has made a bit of a SPLASH.

Basically, he said that when gay daddies write for Doctor Who, if they AREN’T Russell T Davies then they have a problem writing for attractive young women. Not older women, older mumsy women are fine, just the young ones. And Mr Larry implies that it must be because young women must do K.I.S.S.I.N.G!

This is the CORE of what he had to say:

“But every gay writer in Doctor Who, other than Cuddly God-Bear Russell T. Davies himself, seems determined to turn each new female character into a mother-figure, a hate-object, or a human sacrifice: see also the “work” of Mark Gatiss and Matthew Jones, who routinely bump off the girls and let the mothers live.”

Of course, by “every gay daddy” he actually means “the THREE gay daddies who aren’t Mr Russell”. (Or, as daddy puts it, of the twenty scripts by gay daddies we will ignore sixteen.) This is not what you would call a STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT sample.

In the first year, this means Mr Mark Gatiss, since Mr Rob Sherman, Mr Paul Cornell and Mr Steven Moffat are all pretty much married to pretty much ladies. Mr Mark wrote “The Unquiet Dead” – a story that Mr Larry has been not uncontroversial about before – which DOES feature the young woman getting exploded though, to be fair, everyone else who isn’t Charles Dickens has ALREADY been killed and turned into ZOMBIES. In the second year, he contributed “The Idiot’s Lantern” where the female characters were the downtrodden mummy who finds some backbone and the evil television lady.

Now at FIRST GLANCE that might look like a perfect correlation with Mr Larry’s stereotypes. But in order to do that you have to look at, say, Mrs Rita Connelly and say she is Tommy’s mummy and that is all we need to know. In fact, as Daddy Alex points out, almost none of her story is about her being Tommy’s mummy. In actual fact, it is about her being abused by her husband, and then standing up for her own mother and for herself. Far from JUST being a “mother”, she steps out of that ROLE to become her own person.

Alternatively, look at the MALE characters in those stories. Mr Dickens re-discovers his love of his family (father-figure); Mr Sneed is a weak man who gets killed off to become a Gelth zombie (human sacrifice); and Mr Eddie Connolly is revealed as a bully and a sneak (hate-figure). It is EASY to put people into BOXES, isn’t it? In fact, all three of these men are more complex than that too: Mr Sneed, for example, has a rather wry sense of humour, and though he may sometimes appear to bully Gwyneth it turns out that he is also rather generous with her pay.

You might also look at what the other (non-gay-daddy) writers do with THEIR lady characters. The only lady in “Dalek” is Ms Diana Goddard – named after Mr Rob’s WIFE! – who turns out to be a bit naughty at the end where she takes over from her evil boss. The attractive young woman in Mr Paul’s “Father’s Day” may not be a human sacrifice, but her wedding goes a bit up in smoke when everyone ELSE gets eaten by the Reapers, and the WHOLE of “The Empty Child” two-parter hinges on Nancy being a MOTHER FIGURE.


So being sneery about Mr Mark Gatiss’ work may not actually stand up.

But what about Mr Larry’s other evidence: “The Impossible Planet” where the pretty, young woman was killed by a pretty, young man (who is a bit possessed by the devil), and this week’s “The Shakespeare Code” where a pretty, young man was quickly killed by a pretty, young woman (who then turns out to be an evil ugly witch).

If we just brush over just exactly how much of “The Impossible Planet” was REALLY written by him and how much was written by Mr Russell – because that’s a WHOLE other can of WORMS – then Mr Matt Jones is the new gay daddy writing in Doctor Who’s second season. Though, we do not really know about Mr Toby Whithouse or young Master Tom MacRae. But we do know that Mr Matthew Graham has talked about his sons: Sam Tyler in “Life on Mars” is named after one of them (that’s right, he’s Tyler Graham).

In fact, the one most obvious “mother figure” in the new series so far is Trish Webber in Mr Matthew’s “Fear Her”, who has nothing to add to the plot other than her “concerned mother” acting. That’s the OTHER problem for Mr Larry’s theory: if the non-gay-daddy writers do the thing that he says only the gay daddies do it looks less like a pattern and more like he’s just picking evidence to support his attack.

But back to “The Impossible Planet”, the thing about killing off of an attractive young lady character is that it is IMPLICITLY a threat to kill off the Doctor’s best friend Rose, who funnily enough is an attractive young lady character. And this is especially true in “The Impossible Planet”/”The Satan Pit” where the Beast pretty directly threatens to do exactly that to Rose too!

And this, of course, is where Mr Larry’s theory falls completely to pieces. Because quite obviously EVERY episode has an attractive female character who is (as seen in the first twenty seconds of “Rose”, and loads of times since) not above a bit of K.I.S.S.I.N.G. And yet, whether she is Rose or Martha, she is a rounded character with strengths and flaws.


Mr Larry picks up on one line of Martha’s in “The Shakespeare Code” where she asks what Bedlam is – as an intelligent medical student, says Larry, she should know that. And he is RIGHT, she should. It is one of those difficult moments for the writer: someone needs to ask on behalf of the audience, so that the audience can know that Bedlam is (a) where mad people go and (b) supposed to be a hospital. It can’t be Shakespeare because he’s local and OBVIOUSLY knows what it means; it cannot be Dr Who either, because he is an ALIEN GENIUS who knows everything. So it has to be Martha asking the “What’s that Doctor?” question.

Of course, you COULD have scripted it better – had the Doctor explain it to Martha automatically and have her say “yes, I know!”. But that risks ALIENATING your viewers from their identification figure by having her be Ms Know-It-All.

The problem is that, based on this one slip, Mr Larry then throws up his arms and says: “woe, woe the smart cookie of ‘Smith and Jones’ has been dumbed down by the nasty gay daddy!” But to do that he has to overlook the fact that within seconds of coming out of the TARDIS after her first trip, Martha is asking intelligent time-travel questions; that she consistently throughout picks up on the important clues that the Doctor gives her and improves the way she interacts with 1599; and that in the end, she – not the genius Shakespeare, not the genius Doctor – comes up with just the right word to finish the “spell” that banishes the Carrionites again. (And remember – earlier the Doctor complained that she was a novice because, unlike Rose, she didn’t know the right word to say.)


A lot of people have written already about why Doctor Who is apparently very popular with gay daddies. They often say it is because Dr Who does not do LURVE – which made the series surprisingly ASEXUAL, in a way that the MACHO, MANLY American Sci-Fi really isn’t – everything from “Knight Rider” to chromium-era Battleham Galacticake, to the definitely-NOT-gay daddy of them all, “Star Trek”.

Well, the re-invention of the series by Mr Russell has kept remarkably many of the things from the first twenty-six years of Doctor Who – Daleks, Cybermen, Venom Grubs – but one thing that it has NOT kept is that “no hanky-pancake” rule. Dr Who himself has fallen for a GIRL. And not just any girl, but one with a whole LIST of people that she flirts with (Mickey, Adam, Captain Jack, the Face of Boe…) all of them BOYS! Now, unlike all those American series I just mentioned, Doctor Who does not present boy/girl romance as the ENTIRETY of human experience – Captain Jack on his own covers so many other bases. But there are still very, very few gay daddies to be seen on the show. And even then, they are a bit UNDER COVER: Rickey and Jake on the alternative Earth of Pete’s World (keep very quiet about it thanks to dialogue being snipped); Tommy Connolly in “The Idiot’s Lantern” (one allusion to being a “mummy’s boy” and one remark about being allowed to “love who you choose”, neither of which might meet anything); a couple of “rather severe” ladies who now live in Elton Pope’s childhood home (whom we don’t actually meet).

One of the EASIEST ways to cause a fuss on the Outpost Gallifrey forums is if anyone suggests that anything more… OVERT should be put on screen. “Why do you NEED to see BOYS kissing BOYS or GIRLS kissing GIRLS?” is the usual cry. “Well, because GIRLS kiss BOYS all the time, in this new series!” seems a fair enough answer.

To try and suggest that the gay daddies writing for Doctor Who have some kind of PLOT to portray girls as ICKY is seriously to overlook all of the very pro-girls-who-like-boys-who-like-girls-ness that now comes fitted as standard.

Okay, so this week – for the first time in thirty episodes – we had a “kiss the girl and she turns BAAAAD” moment. So what’s the big fluffy deal – “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” did “kiss the girl and she turns BAAAAD” in its OPENING SCENE ("Hello, Darla!"); they did “kiss the BOY and he turns BAAAAD” as a major theme for the whole second year. Did people make a fuss that “nasty” non-gay daddy Joss Whedon had some anti-straight agenda? I think they did not.

And anyway, as Doctor Freud WISELY puts it: sometimes an evil cackling witch is JUST an evil cackling witch.

Please check you OWN agenda at the door.

Day 2242: Advice to the American Anglicans – Get Out Now!

Tuesday:


It's a twap! It's a twap! as flappy, fishy fleet-commander Admiral Akbar would say.


Today the leaders of the Church offered their American branch a DEAL: stop behaving like CHRISTIANS and we'll let you stay in our GANG.

The idea that the Episcopal Church should let those members who want to HATE GAY DADDIES set up a "parallel" church organisation within an organisation is NOT a compromise. It is the first step towards kicking the NICE Americans out WITHOUT having to let them take all of their church buildings and all of their money with them!

Yes, that's right – it is a PROPERTY SCAM!

It ought to be OBVIOUS to anyone who thinks about it that the Anglican Church has a CASH FLOW problem. The problem being none of the CASH will FLOW into Africa.

The Church of England IN England is clearly VERY RICH indeed. But unfortunately, it is rich because it OWNS large bits OF England, and they are not very portable. Plus the Church Commissioners rather lost a lot of it in financial scandals in the 90s. Most of the International Anglican Communion's ACTUAL CASH MONEY therefore resides in… ta dah!... AMERICA!

So the Americans have all the money and the Africans have nothing except their PATHOLOGICAL HATRED religious convictions.

So, if they kick the Yanks out TODAY, then all that lovely lucre goes with them. Bye bye lovely money! No, can't have that. So instead, they have decided to set up a RIVAL Anglican Church inside the Church in America so that when the time comes they can go to COURT to get hold of some or all of the DOSH!

Imagine the scene in court now: "We've been the Anglican Church here for years and years, sir. And we put all of this money into the collection." "Ahh, but, your honourship, WE'VE got the shiny purple BADGE from the Archpillock of Canterbury saying WE'RE the PROPER Anglican Church. Case dismissed."

Here are the other details of the deal:

• No more BLESSINGS for couples who love each other if they happen to be of the same GENDER.

• No more promoting Gay Daddies to the rank of Bishop… sorry, that should read no more promoting Gay Daddies who are HONEST about being Gay Daddies.

• And smile and say thank you as we hit you with this stick.

Dr Rowan Williams, less spiritual leader of the world's Anglican Communion, more Womble that has turned to the DARK SIDE, described the deal as:

"A challenge for both sides."

Yes, the CHALLENGE for one side is to see if they can hold off RANTING about Gay Daddies until they’ve got their hands on the loot, while CHALLENGE for the other side is to see if they can grin and bear it while their done up like KIPPERS!

Dr Williams hopes to "provide a way of moving forward with dignity", which is obviously rather easier for HIM to say than the people he is expecting to GROVEL on their knees.


So, MY advice to the Americans is GET OUT! Get while the going is GOOD! Keep your churches and bank accounts and gay daddies and women bishops and STAY TRUE to your belief in a religion of LOVE and KINDNESS.

Do not worry about leaving the Church of England with NOTHING. I am SURE that I remember SOMETHING about poverty being A GOOD THING in the Christian Church. Something about a ROLE MODEL.

For some reason the Archpillock of Canterbury seems to have forgotten who that role model was.

Perhaps someone can remind him for me!