Richard Carvath ~ political activist

Abort67 Martyrs Andy Stephenson and Kathryn Sloane versus Sussex Police in Freedom of Speech Case

2012-01-28T19:24:00.007Z

The Great British Abortion Holocaust began in 1968 following the passage of the Abortion Act 1967 into British statute law on 27th October 1967. According to the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), a staggering 9,000,000 innocent children will have been slaughtered in the Great British Abortion Holocaust by the 50th anniversary of the Abortion Act 1967 later this decade. Abort67 is a small pro-life group [Abort67 Facebook] which was set up to campaign for the right to life in the Brighton & Hove area. Abort67 is a group of Evangelical Christians inspired by the example of Dietrich Bonhoeffer - the man behind the famous quotation "We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself." Abort67 volunteers regularly bear peaceful witness to the appalling carnage and injustice of the Great British Abortion Holocaust in their home town of Brighton with graphic public displays of murder victims outside the BPAS Wistons Baby Murder Centre. Since Abort67 volunteers began their campaign, several babies have been saved from murder inside Wistons as a direct result of the volunteers' work. Abort67 campaigners Andy Stephenson and Kathryn Sloane (pictured above) have been arrested several times by Sussex Police and on Monday 30th January 2012 Stephenson and Sloane will plead Not Guilty to public order offences at Brighton Magistrates' Court [Edward Street, BN2 0LG]. Sussex Police and the Crown Prosecution Service will contend that it is a public order offence simply to display a visual image of an aborted foetus in public; Stephenson and Sloane will contend that their behaviour in displaying visual images of murder victims does not constitute a criminal offence and, moreover, that the erroneous assertion that such behaviour is an offence is a serious assault upon and attempted suppression of their rights to freedom of speech, assembly and protest. It is clear that Sussex Police and the CPS are happy to support the legalised mass murder of Brighton's most vulnerable people, and happy also to attempt to suppress the free speech of a handful of Christians who are simply seeking to raise public awareness of pro-life issues by means of peaceful displays of their subject matter. According to Sussex Police and the CPS, it is perfectly legal to murder people under the auspices of the Abortion Act 1967 but it is not legal to bear public witness to the Great British Abortion Holocaust. Whilst it is legal to slaughter unborn people, Sussex Police and the CPS would have us believe that it is not legal to protest about pro-life issues in public: Legal to do it, but not legal to show it?

LBB Angel: revised honour fight challenge

2012-01-26T04:56:00.004Z

Right, as you know, the 23rd February proposal is now off due to unforeseen circumstances beyond my control. There not being any similar suitable opportunity that I can think of in the near future for us to meet in public in order to do the necessary admin to arrange a contest, I therefore propose that you send me a legit email - (which would be your first ever legit email to me) - containing your full name, date of birth, current residential address and a telephone number and then we could reasonably and conceivably proceed with arranging a contest, (probably by fixing up the necessary meeting in person for verification admin in the public reception of a 24 hour police station in Manchester). I am doing my best to accommodate you and make it happen; this revised challenge is the best means for arranging things that I am able to offer you, so it's your move once again...

Spiked

2012-01-25T21:39:00.003Z

Well, LBB Angel is off the hook because the public meeting I had challenged him to attend in February has been cancelled by the organisers. I had no involvement in cancelling the meeting and I am somewhat disappointed by this recent turn of events (indeed, beyond disappointed, I'm actually rather annoyed). I don't know what happened to cause the cancellation - whether divine intervention or the work of some human hand(s) - I just know the meeting is off.

The vice trade saga continues and the matter of Angel will have to be resolved by some other means as yet to be determined. Very frustrating but there it is.

Sandys Superstars Chief Constable Peter Fahy

2012-01-21T15:51:00.005Z

Sandys Superstars GMP Chief Constable Peter Fahy video

TheLBB.co.uk

2012-01-21T01:50:00.003Z

Manchester's Head Pimp, Angel - the serious and organised gangster boss who likes to strut his stuff in his underpants on Twitter, and the owner of the Little Black Book prostitution website - has been given a warning for his criminal behaviour. Angel is in deep trouble with other gangsters and also with Greater Manchester Police. Angel has also been challenged to an honour fight with British political activist Richard Carvath - the man he's been chasing for months on end. Angel thought he could scare Carvath into capitulating to his gangster demands, but Angel thought wrong. Angel thought he could scare Carvath by challenging him repeatedly to an honour fight, but now Richard Carvath has shocked the gangster fraternity by challenging the self-fancying Angel to meet him in the ring. All Angel has to do is show up for a pre-fight admin meeting on the 23rd February; if Angel does not show he will be officially and publicly declared by the British Gangster Association to have 'No Honour' and 'No Respect' and he will be given his 15 minutes. Richard Carvath said, "I know Angel's in a lot of trouble with several big nobs; I sincerely hope Angel doesn't take the coward's way out by topping himself or fleeing the country. I will meet him in the ring if he is man enough to face me - and I will also take him on in court given the opportunity to do so. I will crush and destroy this gangster scum in court or in the ring." See previous posts on this blog for more about LBB Angel vs Richard Carvath.

RE POST: FAO Manchester gangster Angel of the Little Black Book

2012-01-15T02:40:00.005Z

[This is a re-post of the earlier blog-post FAO Manchester gangster Angel of the Little Black Book - subsequent to the cyber attack upon that specific blog-post by 'Lorne.' The Lorne situation is being dealt with and I have decided to leave the original post and the attached Lorne comment in place for the time being. The purpose of this re-post is so that people can click through or link to this re-post without the problem which has been caused by Lorne on the original post. Thanks.]

Dear 'Angel,'

I am heartily sick of your evil, depraved and criminal behaviour. I am also disappointed that to date Greater Manchester Police have taken no law enforcement action against you of which I am aware.

As you know, your gang members turned up in person at my mother's home and terrified her. You did not dare to confront me directly, but chose to target my mother instead (who, needless to say, has no involvement whatsoever in my political activism against the vice trade).

You know very well than unless you or your gang members were to resort to the use of firearms I would deal firmly with you or any of your gangster colleagues in any assault upon me which you might attempt.

You and your gang members have also been round to various other addresses in person to terrorise people and to attempt to gather information in your criminal campaign against me. Furthermore you have pursued a prolonged, extreme and anonymous defamation campaign against me on the internet.

It goes without saying that I am extremely annoyed by these criminal activities amd the time has now come for these crimes to be dealt with. Without prejudice to any law enforcement actions which GMP may yet take in regard of you and your criminal associates, I have decided the time has come to offer you the opportunity to make good on all your previous challenges of [legal] hand-to-hand combat with me, as I welcome the opportunity to meet with you to 'seek a final resolution of our dealings.'

I will be at the general public meeting... [Edit 25/01/12: I have removed the rest of the originally published sentence which gave details of the time, date and venue for the public meeting, because I have just been notified that the organisers have cancelled the meeting]. I invite you to attend. I invite you to approach me there and say, "I'm Angel, and I'm ready to rumble." Bring with you two forms of photo ID carrying your real name and address and I will arrange for your identity to be verified by Greater Manchester Police. Once you have been verified I see no reason why we cannot then swiftly arrange a [legal] hand-to-hand combat 'contest' - Mr. Richard Carvath vs. Underpants.

In hand-to-hand combat - which you've claimed to desire so many times - I will teach you the lesson you so richly deserve. I don't care whether you're 10 stone, 15 stone, 20 stone or more. I don't care whether you're 5 feet, 6 feet or 7 feet tall. I don't care whether you are an expert in kung fu, karate or any other martial art. I don't care what military service background you have. You are a cowardly piece of excrement and if you want to take me on in hand-to-hand combat then I will gladly flush you down the toilet where you belong you gangster scum.

This is a serious offer. You have the opportunity to make good on all of your wild boasting. You also have the opportunity to come out of hiding and show yourself to the general public and the press if indeed you are as law-abiding and unashamed of your vice activities as you claim.

If you want to stop poncing around in your underpants on the internet I am offering you an appointment with Justice in the real world...

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Richard Carvath,

Vice Trade Abolitionist.

Message to 'Lorne'

2012-01-15T01:06:00.003Z

To all readers,

'Lorne' is the name given with the comment submitted and published on the blog-post immediately below this one about Angel; be warned, you will probably find that if you click on either the comment-link or the post-link below your screen will go blank.

If you google 'Lorne' you will find that this name is essentially a synonym for 'Angel' - something to do with some 'Buffy the Vampire' type of series from several years ago. 'Lorne' is a demonic character.

To Lorne,

Don't submit any further comments to this blog since you want to play silly games a la ghost in the machine.

Your formal style of writing was touching; I took the view that yours faithfully was the way to go given that 'Angel' is not actually his real name (and so is more akin to 'Sir'). My apologies to you if my use of yours sincerely caused you significant distress.

Ah, you mentioned duelling. Those were the days eh, back before the advent of modern policing when a duel to the death was perfectly legal (as well as honourable). Mention of duelling does tickle my Authentic Masculinity Funnybone, I must say.

Well, duelling is no longer legal in the UK; these days we have police forces like GMP who uphold the law, protect us all and keep us safe from nasty gangsters - how fortunate we are.

I have challenged serious and organised criminal Angel to come forward so that we can arrange the legal contest [boxing, MMA, whatever] between us which he has sought several times on and off for approaching three years (since Angel's earliest challenges to me under the false name of 'Roger Berry' on former Salford Councillor Joe O'Neill's blog). My offer is of course quite legal and it is of course entirely serious: if this gangster has the balls, he can come forward and we will settle it once and for all in some legal form of combat. If Angel does want to test his balls - he will be crushed in combat.

[It often mystifies me the low assessment my enemies make of my personal capabilities. There's enough evidence out there to make a well-informed assessment of me even just from what's public on the web. Why enemies think I'm stupid, badly educated, physically or mentally feeble etc is a mystery to me; such conclusions are delusional. As regards a combat scenario, I have experience and I am a hard man; I've done things which most people wouldn't dare to do; I've operated to a very high standard in all sorts of activities; I've survived circumstances which would leave most men dead; Angel may be a hardcore 'tough nut' but he has never mixed it with me, and so if he's arrogant enough to think he'd steamroller me in 10 seconds then let him come out of hiding and prove it - and he will be crushed in combat.]

As regards your remarks about senior GMP officers, I would like to point out that I bent over backwards to be polite, friendly and co-operative to GMP in regard of the ongoing Sandy's Superstars case but, to my great disappointment (indeed to my horror), to date I now have to say - very solemnly and seriously - that all I have done is waste my time with a bunch of overpaid piss-takers and dishonourable rogues who are unwilling to co-operate with a law-abiding citizen in the enforcement of the law of this land - in keeping with their oath to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Believe me, I am a man of considerable patience and restraint, and I have extended abundant grace and patience towards GMP and in return I have been treated with utter contempt: Inspectors and even a Chief Superintendent fobbing me off in emails. Furthermore, I would like to point out that everything's just cushty isn't it for GMP boys with their big salaries and their police officer status - plenty of resources and no gangsters turning up threatening Peter Fahy's mother, and no gangsters seeking out Jon Rush in person (and the bills paid every month and plenty to spare). On the other hand, I have been stretched almost to breaking point as a civilian citizen doing everything at my own expense and living under the cloud - as I have been doing now for 18 months - of major security threats to my person from serious and organised criminals, and have I received any protection or assistance from GMP?... no I haven't.

You know Lorne, I'm pretty certain who I'm dealing with in you. Do not come on this blog playing the clever dick [with your 'technical tinkering'] with me again. I have put a trace out on you and I have also covered you and your tinkering on this blog with the Royal Blood of King Jesus to deal with your demonic poison.

My challenge to gangster Angel remains the same. He can come on down and meet me man to man in combat (as he's mentioned so many times before) if he has the balls to do so.

And my instruction to GMP remains the same: enforce the law in regard of the Sandy's Superstars gang. Do it soon; you've had long enough already. I've had Angel and the Sandy's gang hassling me for months on end whilst you've been playing with your truncheons. Get on and do the job you are paid to do and for which you swore a solemn oath.

FAO Manchester gangster Angel of the Little Black Book

2012-01-13T23:30:00.007Z

Dear 'Angel,'

I am heartily sick of your evil, depraved and criminal behaviour. I am also disappointed that to date Greater Manchester Police have taken no law enforcement action against you of which I am aware.

As you know, your gang members turned up in person at my mother's home and terrified her. You did not dare to confront me directly, but chose to target my mother instead (who, needless to say, has no involvement whatsoever in my political activism against the vice trade).

You know very well that unless you or your gang members were to resort to the use of firearms I would deal firmly with you or any of your gangster colleagues in any assault upon me which you might attempt.

You and your gang members have also been round to various other addresses in person to terrorise people and to attempt to gather information in your criminal campaign against me. Furthermore you have pursued a prolonged, extreme and anonymous defamation campaign against me on the internet.

It goes without saying that I am extremely annoyed by these criminal activities and the time has now come for these crimes to be dealt with. Without prejudice to any law enforcement actions which GMP may yet take in regard of you and your criminal associates, I have decided the time has come to offer you the opportunity to make good on all your previous challenges of [legal] hand-to-hand combat with me, as I welcome the opportunity to meet with you to 'seek a final resolution of our dealings.'

I will be at the general public meeting... [Edit 25/01/12: I have removed the rest of the originally published sentence which gave details of the time, date and venue for the public meeting, because I have just been notified that the organisers have cancelled the meeting]. I invite you to attend. I invite you to approach me there and say, "I'm Angel, and I'm ready to rumble." Bring with you two forms of photo ID carrying your real name and address and I will arrange for your identity to be verified by Greater Manchester Police. Once you have been verified I see no reason why we cannot then swiftly arrange a [legal] hand-to-hand combat 'contest' - Mr. Richard Carvath vs. Underpants.

In hand-to-hand combat - which you've claimed to desire so many times - I will teach you the lesson you so richly deserve. I don't care whether you're 10 stone, 15 stone, 20 stone or more. I don't care whether you're 5 feet, 6 feet or 7 feet tall. I don't care whether you are an expert in kung fu, karate or any other martial art. I don't care what military service background you have. You are a cowardly piece of excrement and if you want to take me on in hand-to-hand combat then I will gladly flush you down the toilet where you belong you gangster scum.

This is a serious offer. You have the opportunity to make good on all of your wild boasting. You also have the opportunity to come out of hiding and show yourself to the general public and the press if indeed you are as law-abiding and unashamed of your vice activities as you claim.

If you want to stop poncing around in your underpants on the internet I am offering you an appointment with Justice in the real world...

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Richard Carvath,

Vice Trade Abolitionist.

MossOff update

2012-01-11T16:01:00.004Z

Well, I should've tried harder at school... I failed my Mossad Exams back in the '90s but thankfully they let me into Mossoff instead. Every cloud has a silver lining.

So, hello 2012. I'm still essentially on sabbatical from blogging and my usual web activities and that could remain the case for some time.

I'm very busy in life offline with lots of things going on: the seasons of my life are changing - the old season is passing and I'm on the threshold of a new season. All being well I hope to get back to proper blogging this springtime.

A few quick notes...

MossOff's Manchester Op against serious and organised criminals in the British vice trade - focused particularly on Manchester - should come to a climax this year.

China Essay is coming.

The David Burrowes MP vs. Richard Carvath matter is also on the way.

Note to Sarah Whatmore: Sarah, if you read this, regarding the person(s) running a fictitious Twitter account using your name [and mine] and also your image, if you consider yourself to be defamed or harassed by this conduct then I advise you to make a formal complaint to Greater Manchester Police. The person(s) behind the fake Twitter account will almost certainly be involved in the vice trade. As you know, I support your music career aspirations and wish you well in the pursuit of your singing and songwriting.

I will be at a public meeting of SPUC in Eccles next month so why not come along? I love to play 'Spot the Gangster' and 'Spot the Plain Clothes Boys and Girls.' Come on down and find out more about the work of SPUC and pro-life issues. [Edit 25/01/12: I've just been notified that Eccles SPUC has CANCELLED its February meeting.]

Right, I'll be back in Blog Town in a few weeks. If you want to read a good blog then go read Stewart Cowan's Realstreet (click sidebar link).

Ciao for now.

Kylie Minogue's bottom: a political philosophy

2011-12-26T22:53:00.006Z

[Richard Carvath is away]

TRAILER:

You may or may not be familiar with Kylie Minogue

Anybody who knows Richard Carvath well will know that he sometimes laments how - despite him being perhaps the most important living British political activist of the 21st century - his low-profile, lo-fi social campaigning has thus far failed to enter the British public's consciousness to anything like the same extent as, say, Kylie Minogue's bottom.

And why is that?

Where's the justice?

What's more important... the serious work of a political activist or the bottom-swivelling of a pert pop singer?

The matter of the effective communication of one's counter-cultural socio-political message to the masses through the dumbed-down, porn-poisoned low culture of accessible mainstream media opportunities is the central theme of Richard Carvath's forthcoming new paper Kylie Minogue's bottom: a political philosophy.

This is not one to miss!

No British politico should be without a copy of this astonishingly insightful pdf.

I've seen an early draft... this essay is HOT stuff!

Kylie Minogue's bottom: a political philosophy by Richard Carvath is due for release in 2012.

Watch this space...

[by guest contributor]

P.S. (Aidan Burley MP and Richard Carvath)

2011-12-20T14:36:00.005Z

Well, my previous blog-post was to have been my last post this year, however in the wake of Cannock Chase Conservative MP Aidan Burley's Nazi antics I felt compelled to publish the following now...
To date, David Cameron has punished idiotic and depraved Toryboy toff Aidan Burley by sacking him from a junior government post as a parliamentary private secretary. Big deal. This is simply not good enough. By his antics Aidan Burley has demonstrated that he is not fit to be a Member of Parliament or a member of the Conservative Party.
Aidan Burley is still a Conservative MP and he is still a member of the Conservative Party. Aidan Burley should be expelled immediately from membership of the Conservative Party: that is the action I would take if I were Prime Minister.
I will be going public with the full story of my two expulsions from Conservative Party membership (in 2008, and in 2010) and from the Conservative Christian Fellowship (in 2010) next year.
In brief, in 2008 I was summarily expelled from Conservative Party membership simply for the public expression of mainstream orthodox Christian conservative views on the homosexual-perversion and on islam. In 2010 I rejoined the party and the CCF online, and when this was discovered I was expelled again (essentially an automatic expulsion because of my previous expulsion).
I am a traditional conservative. I hold bedrock conservative views. Genuine conservatives and Christians such as myself were welcome in the 'Conservative' Party since the party's origins right up until the party was hijacked by secular humanist non-conservative David Cameron just six years ago.
Winston Churchill - the greatest ever Conservative and greatest ever British Prime Minister - led the British people and the British Empire in the fight against Hitler and the Nazis and it was Churchill who stated that the Second World War was fought in defence of "Christian civilisation."
So let's do as little compare and contrast shall we? Let's spot the difference...
Under David Cameron, Conservative MP Aidan Burley can associate himself with Nazism and yet remain a member of the Conservative Party, but genuine conservative and Christian Richard Carvath is expelled from Conservative Party membership for expressing mainstream orthodox conservative Christian views.
In summary then, under 'Conservative' PM David Cameron, conservative Christians are summarily expelled from the Conservative Party but goose-stepping, Hitler-saluting toffs in full Nazi uniform remain most welcome.
How low the once great Conservative Party has sunk.
If Winston Churchill were here today - he who fought the Nazis and stated that we fought in defence of "Christian civilisation" - I wouldn't be surprised if he went up to David Cameron, chinned him one and told him to: "Bugger off out of the Conservative Party right now. You are not a Conservative. You are a shame and a disgrace not only to the Conservative Party but to all true Englishmen. Go!"

David Cameron: Repent or Go

2011-12-17T15:34:00.011Z

Well, I see that Prime Minister David Cameron has been sounding off about the Church and Christian moral standards and has even urged the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to pull his socks up! I agree with the broad thrust of David Cameron's platitudes and I believe that he sincerely meant what he said, however, I am frankly aghast at the confused and depraved spiritual condition David Cameron is clearly in to be so deluded as to think that he is even remotely near to being a Prime Minister who stands up for Britain's traditional Christian moral standards and the Christian faith. Wishy-washy Anglican 'Christian' David Cameron emphatically does not practise what he preaches.

Let me state plainly that I do not believe that David Cameron is genuinely a Christian in the true meaning of the word (however sincerely he may think he is). Furthermore, for the record, I seriously doubt that Rowan Williams is genuinely a Christian either. A tree is known by its fruit. Christians do go to church - but going to church does not make anybody a Christian. Religious churchgoers (or 'Churchians' as Evangelicals say) are not Christians. And being baptised or confirmed in a religious ceremony does not make anybody a Christian either. Even believing in God is not what makes anybody a Christian. A genuine Christian is a person who believes in and follows the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour; a genuine Christian is 'born again' by The Holy Spirit; a genuine Christian has an active relationship with their Father God and has abundant life empowered and guided by the indwelling Holy Spirit. Genuine Christians pray regularly, worship God regularly, read and study the Holy Bible regularly - which they accept as the infallible living Word of God - and they are characterised by the fruit of the Holy Spirit (love, joy, peace etc). The lives of genuine Christians will look a lot like Jesus because, after all, He is the one they are following.

No Conservative Leader and no Prime Minister has ever advocated for redefining marriage to accommodate homosexual-perverts before David Cameron. The LGBT homosexual-pervert socio-political agenda is one of the most destructive forces currently at work in British politics and society. The LGBT homosexual-pervert socio-political agenda is particularly destructive of all things good, all things moral and all things Christian in this my country - and David Cameron backs it to the hilt. It is frankly staggering to hear the man who is dead-set on redefining the un-redefinable advocating for Christian standards! I could go on and on with examples of David Cameron's policies and statements which are so anti-moral and anti-Christian as to render Cameron's advocacy of Christian standards as nonsensical as if it came from the lips of the Antichrist himself. The single example of David Cameron's insane desire to redefine marriage is quite sufficient to demonstrate that he is unquestionably not a Christian.

I'll tell you what a Christian Prime Minister of this country would look like... Briefly, if I was appointed Prime Minister tomorrow, within a few weeks of my taking office you could expect that abortion and euthanasia would be banned, all LGBT homosexual-pervert laws would be ripped up, the UK would leave the EU, pornography and the vice trade would be banned... to mention just a few strikingly obvious acts which any genuinely Christian Prime Minister would proceed with as a priority in the British national interest on taking hold of the power to make it all happen.

Make no mistake, David Cameron is as anti-Christian as they come in contemporary British politics. It is laughable that he is the leader of the Conservative Party. David Cameron is not ideologically a Conservative at all. I know what a genuine conservative is: I am one. Just twenty years ago, if any Conservative MP had said they wanted to redefine marriage they'd have been laughed out of town and de-selected from standing at the next General Election - and they might even have been expelled from the party. It was the Conservative Party - when it was conservative - which enacted Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 which banned public bodies from funding or promoting homosexual-pervert propaganda. That was genuine conservatism in action. But now, under David Cameron, I was recently expelled from membership of the Conservative Party simply for expressing orthodox Christian views on homosexual-perversion (and also on islam). I was also expelled from the sham organisation the Conservative Christian Fellowship. If David Cameron is serious about having Christian standards in British society, he could start by re-admitting Christians like myself into membership of the Conservative Party and the party's CCF 'Christian group' rather than kicking us out!

So... let's keep on praying for David Cameron and all those in Government.

Earlier today I was out on Church Street in the centre of Eccles singing Christmas carols with local Christians from Elmwood Church (and elsewhere); as well as singing carols, several of the group engaged in evangelical conversation with interested passers-by. Britain is the 'Christian' nation which once sent missionaries all over the world; now we are a country which receives missionaries from all over the world bringing the Gospel back to us: it was great to have US American Kyle (from San Diego, CA) and New Zealander Damien (from Christchurch) evangelising with the group. In Eccles - one of the oldest sites of Christian presence and activity in the country - a lot of British people were amazed to hear the true meaning of Christmas, of which so many are unaware. The carol singing and gospel evangelism was well-received by Eccles folk who were pleased to hear live carolling and interested to hear the authentic Christmas message - with one exception. There was one man - known to be a local BNP enthusiast - who poured out his passionate opposition to the Gospel; watching him rant away, you could almost see the bitter poison of the pagan BNP oozing out of his pores. So what is this real Christmas message anyway? Christmas is all about Jesus. As they say, "Jesus is the reason for the season." Christmas is the time for celebrating the birth of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ - who is the Saviour of mankind. And what's that all about, you may ask?

Well, New Zealand Christian Damien gave out 'Smart Cards' [a www.needgod.com tract produced by http://www.livingwatersnewzealand.com/] and which read as follows on the front of the card: "GOOD PERSON TEST - FIND OUT HOW GOOD YOU ARE!" Above a red box on the front of the card it says: "Place your thumb firmly on the red box for 15 seconds. If you are a good person, it will turn green." Well, can you believe it, there was not a single good person in the whole of Eccles!

On the back of the card it reads as follows: "Sorry... you're just like the rest of us. The dictionary says 'good' is to be 'morally excellent.' Let's check the standard, the Ten Commandments, to see how far we fall short: Is God first in your life? Do you love Him with 'heart, mind, soul and strength?' Have you made a god to suit yourself? Have you used His name in vain? Have you kept the Sabbath holy? Have you always honoured your parents? Have you hated anyone, and therefore committed murder in your heart? Have you looked with lust and therefore committed adultery in your heart? Have you lied (including 'fibs'), stolen (the value is irrelevant), or coveted other people's possessions? If you are honest, you know you will be guilty on the Day of Judgement. God however, doesn't want you to be sent to Hell. Jesus Christ suffered and died on the Cross, so you could go free. That's how much God loves you. We broke God's Law, but Jesus paid our fine. Then He rose from the grave and defeated death. If you repent (turn away from all things you know are wrong) and trust in Him, God will forgive your sins and grant you everlasting life. Read your Bible daily (start with the chapter called John) and obey what you read, God will never let you down."

This is my last blog-post of 2011 (and I remain essentially on sabbatical from my usual level of internet activity over this winter season). I aim to get back to regular blogging and to start putting out substantial new web content from springtime next year.

May I wish a Merry Christmas to all readers of this blog - and a good year in 2012.

Broken Britain on the Brink

2011-12-03T15:43:00.002Z

Flogging off our RAF family silver

2011-11-24T19:07:00.007Z

[I'm still on my sabb but I couldn't let this one pass without saying something right now...] A deal to flog the entire British Harrier jump jet fleet to the United States Marine Corps for use as spare parts has been announced today. This is a sad day for our nation - and our defence capability is much reduced by the permanent loss of probably the best all-round British fighter aircraft to have been designed and built in the UK since the Second World War. The Ministry of Defence is keen to convince the public that the Harrier fleet was obsolescent and that the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will be much better. I'm not so sure myself. I think the only reason the Harrier fleet was decommissioned was to save money; I don't believe for one moment that the decision was in Britain's strategic national defence interests, and neither do I believe that the Harrier is fundamentally past it. It can't be stressed enough what an incredible example of pioneering Great British engineering the Harrier jump jet was when it first entered service with the RAF in 1969. The original Hawker Siddeley Harrier with its Rolls-Royce Bristol Pegasus vectored-thrust turbofan engine was a revolutionary plane - its short/vertical take off capability rendering it a remarkably versatile fighter suitable for use in a broad range of theatres and for various types of operation. The Harrier was able to operate from makeshift bases and short runways (on land) where conventional fixed wing fighters could not, as well as from aircraft carriers. It was excellent for close support, reconnaissance, ground attack and air defence. Harrier fighter jets were widely deployed with great success by the RAF and the Royal Navy over the forty years the Harrier was in service - perhaps most famously in the 1982 conflict to recover the Falklands. I personally do not think the Harrier was past it - for there is no other plane quite like it; indeed I do not believe the JSF can match the sheer operational flexibility afforded to our armed forces by the Harrier. Scrapping the Harrier fleet was all about saving money in the current economic climate, but we should not kid ourselves that our national defence capability is unaffected - rather it is significantly diminished. The UK is in grave danger of being caught with its pants down as new threats arise to confront us in the rapidly evolving dynamics of the 21st century's global political plots and power struggles. The loss of the Harrier fleet is not just a loss to British manufacturing and engineering and of British military prestige: it is a significant reduction of our essential military power. The lack of foresight in getting rid of the Harriers could prove disastrous; my fear is that this loss of capability will come back to bite us severely in the not too distant future.

Sabbatical

2011-10-28T19:35:00.003+01:00

I am taking a sabbatical from blogging here - and from all other public internet activity - starting now; the only exception may be the occasional tweet on Twitter. This sabbatical is likely to last several weeks, however even when I return I anticipate that I will be fairly quiet on the web until next spring.

I'm busy in life offline and I need to focus on my priorities in the present season of my life. In general I need to recharge my batteries, and I'm still recovering my strength after my accident 16 months ago.

Over the coming winter season I want to get a lot of planning and preparation done with a view to vastly improving my web presence next year; I also want to get in lots of reading and do plenty of work on some major writing projects. I am also busy with raising funds for the future.

This year I've finally met the One [wow!] and so I am presently engaged in courting this young lady - an activity which takes up a surprising amount of time and energy... but of course I'm not complaining!

Life is hectic and I'm on an emotional rollercoaster right now and so that's why I'm taking a break from blogging (both here and elsewhere). But I will be back in a few weeks, be sure of that - and I fully expect next year to be a much more fruitful year than this.

2011 has been a tough year spent recovering my health and my finances - both of which were utterly devastated by the fall in 2010 - but 2012 will see me properly back in the saddle and making up for 'lost' time.

Au revoir...

Stone Roses: milk the classics

2011-10-20T21:46:00.004+01:00

Well, the Stone Roses are back together on tour next year. Milk the classics and make a mint I say. The Roses were brilliant at what they did best. Drummer Reni and guitarist John Squires are both top-notch players, Mani is solid on bass and Ian Brown is a quirky frontman with the swagger which Liam Gallagher of Oasis tried to copy and never managed to capture. I remember jamming (on drums) with Squires back before the millenium - after the original Roses line-up split whilst touring the second album in the mid 90s. If the Roses had got their second album out sooner and not left a prolonged void in the scene, then Oasis might not have hit it as big as they did. For me the Roses were the best band to come out of the Manchester scene in the 1980s; I've always thought the Roses were much better than the miserable and vastly over-rated Smiths. Having played along with both Squires and Johnny Marr I have to say Squires at his best is a better guitarist than Marr. (But Morrissey can sing a damn sight better than Brown of course.) I must admit, the Roses reforming does make me feel a little nostalgic for my younger music days. I keep thinking I must dig some old stuff out and stick it up on YouTube. And I'm also thinking that if I return to doing a few paid drumming assignments then that might be a good way of making progress in filling the war chest I need for a future election.

Boundary Commission: Salford and Swinton constituency

2011-10-20T17:07:00.006+01:00

I've yet to make public my opinion of the Boundary Commission's proposed changes to parliamentary constituencies as these would affect the City of Salford. Read on...

If the current Parliament lasts for a full five year term then the next General Election will take place in 2015, by which time the Boundary Commission will have significantly reduced the number of constituencies. This is happening come what may: there will be fewer constituencies in future. Furthermore, nobody should delude themselves into thinking that the Boundary Commission's proposals as they currently stand in regard of constituency boundaries will not largely be implemented without modification across the country. There is more scope for persuading the Boundary Commission about the names of new constituencies, but getting the Boundary Commission to budge much on its preferred boundaries is highly unlikely.

It is therefore more probable than not that the current Boundary Commission proposals regarding the geographical territory of the City of Salford will be implemented without any alteration as regards new constituency boundaries. If that is the case, the existing Salford and Eccles constituency and Worsley and Eccles South constituency will be abolished and the City of Salford patch will be split between four constituencies, only one of which will be wholly situated upon City of Salford turf - namely the proposed new Swinton constituency.

So what is my opinion on the matter?

I take what I believe is a very pragmatic view. I believe the proposed changes are more likely to happen than not and I have no great objection to them, given that the Boundary Commission has no option other than to slash the current number of parliamentary seats.

I believe changing parliamentary boundaries will not have any damaging impact upon how Salford City Council currently operates. The Labour Party will continue to dominate and run Salford City Council. Parliamentary changes will not alter the council's budget or how it is run. Salford City Council will continue to be run in the best interests of the Labour Party so there will be no change there.

Changing the parliamentary boundaries might well make it a little harder for the Labour Party to retain Labour domination over the parliamentary representation of the City of Salford's turf, as is currently the case. New constituency boundaries do raise the genuine possibility of a non-Labour MP representing some portion of City of Salford turf.

Obviously Labour doesn't want anything to happen which might jeopardise its iron grip over the City of Salford. Labour is very happy with the status quo and doesn't want to change it.

The Salford Advertiser knows which side its bread is buttered on - i.e. pleasing the Labour Party - and hence it is unsurprisingly standing shoulder to shoulder with the Salford Labour Party on this issue. The Salford Advertiser - which, incidentally, is not based in Salford at all - also knows that its primary commercial interest is best served by pitching itself culturally as lowest-common-denominator populist pap, by playing up to Salford's socialist heritage and Salford's feel-sorry-for-ourselves and aren't-we-hard-done-by class war attitudes, and by constantly chanting "Ra Ra Ra We Love Salford!" [despite the reality that there is little to celebrate about much of Salford life] in all it does in order to position itself as the voice of Salford for Salford people [if not by Salford people, that is].

The Liberal Democrats in Salford are now a complete irrelevance and I won't even bother to consider them. As for the Conservative Party in Salford, why are they against the changes? I believe the main reason the Tories are standing shoulder to shoulder with the Labour Party over this is because they believe it would be electoral suicide to be portrayed by the Salford Advertiser and other media as not worshipping and defending the Salford identity. That's despite the probability that the current Boundary Commission proposals will improve Tory prospects at the next General Election.

And put yourself in the shoes of Toryboys Iain Lindley and Matthew Sephton who contested Worsley and Eccles South and Salford and Eccles last time. Both will no doubt be hoping for and can reasonably expect to be approved by the party to reprise their candidacies at the next General Election... but only if those constituencies still exist. Just as much as Labour's Hazel Blears and Barbara Keeley face the prospect of fighting it out to contest a new Swinton constituency, Toryboys Iain Lindley and Matthew Sephton would also have to fight it out, and given their mutual passion for all things LGBT, we can expect that a mega hair-pulling, handbag-swinging slap-fest will ensue behind closed Tory doors if Lindley and Sephton do have to slug it out. [Sephton would probably win that one.]

I have no great objection to the boundaries of the proposed new constituencies. I have some sympathy with those who wish to retain the name of Salford in Parliament, and I think the most sensible and reasonable way to do this would be for the proposed Manchester Central constituency to be named instead as Manchester Central and Salford.

I think the best name for the proposed new Swinton constituency is Swinton (not Salford or anything else) as the lion's share of it will be Swinton (along with Worsley and Eccles).

As to whether I might consider going for the new Swinton constituency, well, it would be tempting to stand for a home turf constituency - but without any of the hardcore 'proper Salford' areas to have to try and win over [a pretty futile challenge for anyone not branded red].

If anywhere in the City of Salford is a potential 'Carvath heartland' it is surely Swinton where I grew up. Certainly I 'have more people' in Swinton, Eccles and Worsley than in other parts of the City of Salford area. Swinton, Eccles and Worsley are where I know the best in the City of Salford. But as I've said before, I'm not committing to anything yet as regards the next General Election, and a pre-requisite for my next time is a suitable war chest.

David Cameron's Porn Cock-up

2011-10-11T16:51:00.003+01:00

I'm inclined to agree with this Guardian article in which the major ISPs are reported as asserting that David Cameron's new pornography filtering proposal will prove to be insignificant in effect.

There are basically two good political actions which could be legislated for in regard of internet pornography:

(1) The first and by far the best action would be simply to ban all pornographic content from being hosted by or supplied to public internet users by any servers and other IT infrastructure physically located in British territory under the jurisdiction of British courts and subject to UK law.

(2) The second option - not as good as the first, but with some merit - would be to restrict all pornographic content to a specific XXX domain and then to require that the internet function in such a way that access to that pornographic content only be available on an opt-in basis requiring the completion of a formal registration process in order for licensed users to have a 'porn-enabled' internet connection.

Pornography is poison. No decent Government should allow the poisoning of its people.

EXCLUSIVE: David Cameron says "We will crush the Church once and for all"

2011-10-07T18:05:00.006+01:00

I am deeply grateful to those persons (signed up to Official Secrets) who at great personal risk to themselves are willing to supply me with information which I can then place into the public domain in the best interests of the British people.

We are all now well aware of Prime Minister David Cameron's commitment to the re-definition of marriage: the Government intends that Parliament will legislate to re-define marriage in 2012.

I have seen a transcript of a recent meeting (for which the re-definition of marriage was part of the agenda) and in which David Cameron said:

"We will crush the Church once and for all."

Cameron was referring to the massive opposition to the re-definition of marriage outside of the Westminster bubble.

Those nine words from David Cameron - 'We will crush the Church once and for all' - testify to the heart of David Cameron, as he revealed his true colours in a private meeting which he fully expected to remain confidential.

The British Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party has set himself up against the Body of Christ (i.e. the Church) and against the Lord God Almighty. We can expect that there will be consequences...

Cameron's marriage corruption is not Conservative

2011-10-06T16:18:00.008+01:00

As a certain somebody exclusively predicted one month ago, Prime Minister David Cameron came out guns blazing for the re-definition of marriage yesterday, in his keynote speech to the Conservative Party Conference 2011.

David Cameron even had the staggering audacity to claim that the re-definition of marriage is an ideologically conservative objective. As Mike Judge of the Christian Institute has explained, there is absolutely nothing conservative about messing with marriage. To suggest that marriage is anything other than one man and one woman, as David Cameron does, is as far removed from a conservative stance as the east is from the west. As a genuine conservative kicked out of Conservative Party membership for holding and expressing conservative views, I am sickened but not surprised by Cameron's utterly deluded statement. Let me make it crystal clear: the abolition or redefinition of marriage can be accurately defined in ideological terms as any or all of the following: (1) Radical (in the extreme); (2) Anarchist; (3) Marxist. I challenge anybody to come up with any policy objective which exceeds Cameron's re-definition of marriage as a complete opposite of conservatism.

Given that David Cameron is now hellbent on re-defining marriage, the only question that remains is 'Will he succeed?' In considering the current Parliament, it is difficult to conceive that Cameron could fail. The majority of the public is undoubtedly against messing with marriage, but that will cut little ice in a Parliament full of MPs who just can't get enough of the pink agenda. I daresay that nothing less than the intervention of God will prevent this Parliament re-defining marriage, despite massive public opposition and despite it being just about the most shameful and completely insane legislative act imaginable.

With the exception of the Conservative Party's own 'Christian' group, the Conservative Christian Fellowship, we can expect that every genuine church and Christian organisation in the land stands in opposition to any re-definition of marriage. I was kicked out of the Conservative Christian Fellowship [search this blog's archive] for holding and expressing orthodox Christian views. I've just had a look on the CCF website and I can't find anything about the imminent re-definition of marriage. I can't think of any major Christian organisation in this country engaged in political activism and lobbying which hasn't already spoken out against the re-definition of marriage... but nothing from the CCF. It rather tends to confirm what I've been telling people for some time now: the CCF is a sham organisation. The CCF does have some genuine Christians in its membership, but the CCF itself is not in any meaningful sense a Christian organisation. The CCF is directly controlled by Conservative Party bosses at Millbank - it is a lie that the CCF is an independent organisation - and the CCF exists to deceive Christians and the public into thinking that Christians are welcome and have an influence in the Conservative Party. As I can testify and as many other Christians have found in recent years, we have not been welcome in the Conservative Party since Cameron took over in 2005.

Let's start holding our breath for the Conservative Christian Fellowship to begin 'Making an Impact' in the defence of marriage...

Fiona Bruce MP: a Light in the Darkness

2011-10-05T00:32:00.009+01:00

The Conservative Party is currently holding its conference in Manchester. Yesterday evening (4th October) Conservative MP Fiona Bruce (Congleton) gave a public address to a special Family Prayer Service at St. Ann's Church in central Manchester. The service was arranged by Mr. Kevin Mckenna and hosted by Revd. Nigel Ashworth, the Rector of St. Ann's Church. Mrs. Bruce delivered an excellent public address imbued with her characteristic warmth and love for people. In recognising the tragedy of so many broken families in our country today, Mrs. Bruce lamented that as a society: "We've lost sight of what it means to be human beings in loving relation to one another." And in emphasising the vital role of parents and the importance of marriage and family to British society, Mrs. Bruce encouraged our representatives in Parliament to keep in mind that: "If we are to thrive as a society, we need to ensure that the family undergirds all policy." Mrs. Bruce is pictured above at St. Ann's alongside Mr. Charles Kwaku-Odoi, originally from Ghana, who led prayers of intercession on behalf of Prime Minister David Cameron and the British Government, Opposition and Parliament. On the left in the photo is a Paschal Candle. The Reverend Nigel Ashworth said: "The flame symbolises Jesus as the light of the world and reminds us of His presence amongst us." Mr. Kwaku-Odoi said: "Whoever follows Jesus will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

The irony of status and relative credibility

2011-10-04T02:48:00.008+01:00

The last couple of days I've observed the latest in a long line of examples of the sweet irony of being a political activist [i.e. read 'political activist' as a synonym for 'real hardcore investigative journalist'] as opposed to a recognised 'journalist.' Some fella on Twitter has offered his opinion that my Nadarkhani remarks are based on assumption rather than sources. Others have simply accused me of lying. Well, I certainly haven't lied. Such a conclusion is probably based upon poor comprehension of what I actually wrote. And the fault for that is not mine as a writer - because what I wrote was perfectly clear, matter-of-fact and in this instance was written in lowest common denominator simple English (so that even Americans can get it): the fault for misinterpreting straight remarks regarding Nadarkhani falls squarely upon those readers.

My expectation is that regular [intelligent] readers of this blog understand how this blog functions. Briefly, this blog contains a mix of straight and (sometimes quite subtle) satirical blog-posts. Straight [always factual] and satirical [often non-factual] material is never mixed (to deliberately confuse/deceive) within a single blog-post. A Carvath post is either straight or it is satirical. That being said, some of the straight posts are written in a 'witty tone' rather than in a formal reporting style; some readers may think such posts are satirical but they are not; such posts are serious (factually accurate) yet witty too. Some of my straight posts do contain fact and opinion together but the intelligent reader ought to be able to discern between the two - indeed such discernment is necessary when reading any ordinary newspaper, be it highbrow broadsheet or tabloid dross.

In simple terms then, the posts on this blog fall into three general categories which I might define as follows:

(1a) Straight Content [factual content, formal manner];

(1b) Straight-but-witty Content [factual content, witty manner - occasionally very idiosyncratic];

(2) Satirical Content [style is satirical, whether obviously or subtly: substance may or may not be factual: motive sometimes includes a desire to be deliberately provocative - although this is less often the case than many readers probably suppose].

Of course, posts are not labelled as such. Notwithstanding that it is harder to pick up on a writer's tone than it is to read somebody's tone when we watch and listen to somebody speaking in person, I expect that my [English] readers have the intelligence to exercise a certain level of discernment. I appreciate that American readers are sometimes mystified by things I write because of idiomatic language, parochial in-jokes and the different sense of irony and humour between Brits and Americans. I also appreciate that Americans reading this blog may be offended by my English spellings. I'm afraid that's tough: we English invented English a long time before Americans bastardised the English language. Given my general (and mild) 'prejudice' - namely that, 'generally speaking, Americans are pretty stupid' - I do have a certain sympathy for my American readers - but I do expect truly British people to 'get me' because when you read this blog you are in England with an Englishman.

It would completely spoil this blog if I was to tag posts with a category (straight or satirical). This blog has a lot of what I refer to as 'secret lemonade drinkers.' This blog is read by many people who would not publicly admit to reading it because this blog is deemed outrageous by today's PC Brigade. The regular readership of this blog is genuinely global and the number of readers is much higher than those who would prefer this blog did not exist might dare to guess. Although this blog is deliberately esoteric to date, its daily readership often approaches and occasionally exceeds that of the big political bloggers. As I say, I know there are many of you secret lemonade drinkers out there. There are even Carvath addicts - which is sad, you need help - but most of you secret lemonade drinkers simply get a quasi-erotic kick out of Carvathian satire, or else you hang around here hoping I will toss you a tasty titbit of news (as occasionally I do) before it hits the mainstream media.

Which brings me to the main point of this post. Having made explicit that this blog does carry both straight and satirical material, I'd like to consider the irony of status (as per the headline title) in regard of the straight content.

It is a fact that on this blog I have several times now reported factual news before it has been picked up by the mainstream broadcast and print media. I sometimes publish major national news on this blog which is exclusive at the time of publication. The proof is right here on this blog; there are several examples which you can find. And on a couple of occasions even just my personal opinion as expressed on this blog has been reported in newspapers as news: my blogging has been considered intrinsically newsworthy primarily because of its Carvathian style (rather than for the merit of my subject). Any professional journo familiar with me knows that I'm basically one of them. They know I do serious investigative research (that they don't dare to do). Journalists come to me for information. I give tips to journalists which they then report as fact without identifying me as their source.

I find it deeply ironic that straight factual news content might be (or is) disbelieved or disregarded if/when I put it out on this blog, and yet if I supply that information as a tip to a journalist and that information is subsequently reported by a newspaper then I am suddenly transformed into a credible (though uncredited) source. Although the public almost invariably and without thinking attributes the facts they read directly to the journalist whose newspaper article they are reading as the primary source of those facts, that journalist is actually just a middleman.

More often than not, journalists are not themselves direct witnesses to an event. Journalists are often not the primary source of the facts they report; they do not 'do their own digging' - they don't do their own source-work. Many professional journalists these days simply regurgitate what they are fed in press releases from organisations seeking to publicise something. There are fewer hardcore investigative reporters around who do their own digging than there used to be twenty years ago.

Despite once or twice having been the news, and despite sometimes reporting the news before it becomes the news in the mainstream, [the straight content of] this blog does not have the official status of 'news,' and I as a political activist do not have the official status of 'journalist' despite that being exactly what I am. The perception of status can be a strange business, not least where politics is concerned.

Similarly, perception of qualification is an interesting concept. Who qualifies who? For example, though I am entirely self-taught as a drummer myself - having no formal recognition of my standard of accomplishment, and no formal qualification to teach - it is a fact that I have taught [paid and voluntary] many people to play the drums. Am I qualified to teach drumkit? No. But have I successfully taught drums to people? Yes. So on paper I'm completely unqualified but in practice I know what I'm talking about and can do what I say just as well (if not better) than someone with a nice framed certificate and recognised with the status of 'Teacher.' There are plenty of people who have passed their test and hold a driving licence but they are not safe to drive. They are qualified to drive but they are not safe (or no longer safe) to drive. Though they ought to be disqualified, their status is that of being qualified. University graduates are qualified. A graduate has a university degree. We are supposed to believe that university graduates are highly educated and thus - that education being accredited and assessed by those who are paid to do so - graduates are highly qualified. I must say, though many graduates do possess genuine intellectual ability above average, an increasing number are numpties severely lacking in knowledge of their subject or the ability to apply it. I know a lot more about politics and have a lot more experience of real politics and activism than any 21-year-old politics graduate. I'm much better read too; I've read far more in terms of both breadth of works and sheer volume. As for journalism, well, I'm not qualified at all on paper, but in reality I have far more experience and ability as an investigative researcher and writer than many that are officially recognised on account of a formal qualification. I do not have the status of a journalist - but I am a journalist. I've been researching and writing for years. My tips go far and wide. Directly and indirectly: I inform; I educate; I influence.

Though I am unidentified as the primary source of a reported fact, if it was me that uncovered that fact then how much more the journalist am I than the journalist who gets the credit for publicly reporting the fact? But in terms of perception of status, it simply doesn't work that way. I may be a journalist, but if I am not credited as a journalist then I am not perceived to be a journalist.

Thinking back to the 2010 General Election, in the months before the election two people were reported by the media as being parliamentary candidates for Salford and Eccles. I knew full well that neither of them were genuine. But because the media reported them - they had status. For several months they fraudulently enjoyed the status of a parliamentary candidate - distracting public attention from the genuine candidates, and taking vital column inches of coverage off the genuine candidates - but of course, when it came to the crunch, their names were nowhere to be found on the ballot paper. At the time of them being reported as candidates I believed both of them were bullshitting, I believed that they both had no intention or expectation of actually going through with it, and I believed that the journalists who gave them their media platform - a status and credibility that was later to prove undeserved - also knew full well that they were a couple of bullshitters at the time. I was a genuine candidate. My declaration of candidacy was genuine, but between them a couple of bullshitters and tease Martin Bell (who never actually said he would stand, but merely fancied the idea in public) received far more news coverage than I did.

In politics and in the media there is so often a gulf between the perception of status and the reality. The distortion can be the result of a deliberate manipulation by those journalists who present us with what we ourselves willingly accept as news - because we are reading it in the newspaper - but not always; sometimes we deceive ourselves by the perceptions we form through lack of knowledge of facts, through lack of ability or laziness in interpreting those facts (in order to correctly discern the truth), or through simple prejudice which is quite happy to deny reality.

I often say, "The only power of a lie is if people believe it." It's exactly so. Lies come in many shapes and sizes. The most potent lies often contain a large measure of truth; it's that tiny drop of poison mixed in with the meal that's so deadly. It never ceases to amaze me how people so often fall for lies they fail to recognise as such (though they could've and should've), but when they are confronted by the truth they so often passionately deny it and dismiss it.

Oh for accurate communication, perception and comprehension of real status. They hear it from the horse's mouth and they do not believe; but if the TV or the newspaper tells them they believe.

Accuse me; deny me; dismiss me; distort me; ignore me. True status stands firm while false perceptions fade. I look forward to the day I emerge from those shadows I did not cast: the real me. That day will come.

Not looking good for Nadarkhani

2011-10-03T18:56:00.005+01:00

At time of writing this post, Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani is still alive. The prospect of Nadarkhani surviving much longer seems to be fading, given that it appears he is now accused of being a Zionist. In Iran, persons so accused are often hanged without warning (and without trial/sentencing/appeal). I'm pessimistic about Nadarkhani escaping the hangman's noose. Please continue to pray and lobby on his behalf.

Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani update

2011-10-02T14:00:00.004+01:00

Since my last post, I have received no further news as to the status of Pastor Nadarkhani.

The last communication I received in regard of Pastor Nadarkhani was as per my previous post; I do not know whether the hanging that I was informed was scheduled for this morning proceeded or not.

It is to be hoped that Pastor Nadarkhani is still alive.

Until we hear otherwise we must assume Pastor Nadarkhani is alive and we must continue to pray and fast for him and to lobby Iranian officials.

If I learn of anything new I will post it here asap.

Shalom.

Richard Carvath.

Nadarkhani hanging set for 6am (Iran Time) tomorrow

2011-10-01T19:23:00.006+01:00

[Via Jerusalem, from an Israeli source in Gilan province, Iran.] I have received a brief note to the effect that the hanging of Pastor Nadarkhani in Lakan prison has been scheduled for 06:00 hours [03:30 in the UK] tomorrow, Sunday 2nd October. I cannot verify this information directly but my source is usually reliable. (It is certainly not a hoax tip off.) If indeed the hanging takes place tomorrow then it will have happened before the formal issue of the written verdict (and therefore the opportunity to appeal that verdict). That would not be inconsistent with the known modus operandi of the Iranian authorities. Please continue to pray for Pastor Nadarkhani and to contact Iranian officials on his behalf. Pray that Pastor Nadarkhani will not be hanged in seven hours' time. Pray that whatever happens Nadarkhani holds true to his faith.

Richard Carvath.

Niggas of Nish sample

2011-09-27T23:28:00.002+01:00

I don't know how many more days I have left in this life. I may live another 40 years yet... who knows? I thought it was game over when I was in mid-flight falling down Shepherd's Crag last year - ironically down a climb called Finale - but then I regained consciousness at the bottom, somewhat broken but still alive, awaking to find myself surrounded by Keswick mountain rescue team and to the realisation that I'm not shuffling off this mortal coil until God jolly well says so.

[I've never publicised the whole story of my climbing accident on the internet - particularly in its spiritual respects - so if you want to know the full story you'll just have to hear it in person.]

But, you know, when I think about it, I have to say that so far I've had an interesting and eventful life. I never thought life would turn out as it has. I found God (or rather He found me). I've met some remarkable people. I've been to some amazing places. I've done things I would never have dared to dream of when I was a boy.

These days I am publicly known to most people for politico/journo stuff I get up to, or for political research/writing, but I did have a former life as a musician which I sometimes yearn for. Nostalgia eh. It's funny how stuff from 10 or 20 years ago sticks in your mind and comes back from time to time. Fond memories. Your first kiss. Your first car (which for me was a '86 D reg 1.6 Vauxhall Cavalier). All sorts of stuff from the past, as fresh in your mind as if it had just happened.

Well, occasionally I do feel nostalgic about my music days. They were happy days indeed. I was in various bands and I recorded and performed all sorts of music with all sorts of people. Years ago I was a competent bassist, guitarist, drummer and singer. I was best as a drummer and a singer, and I'm still pretty good in these disciplines to this day, despite not being in regular practice, because drums and vocals are my natural strengths in music. I've barely touched fretboards for years so I'm well out of it on guitars.

Looking back, I actually worked with some very interesting people - including some who are quite well known - and one day I just might get round to putting together a compilation of old recordings from years ago and popping them up on YouTube.

One thing I've noticed about my life is how sometimes the strangest things happen that you would never in a million years expect. Word has reached me that a major East Coast hip hop producer has sampled something I worked on from 12 years ago for a new project which I'm told has the working title of 'The Niggas of Nish' (the name of a new gangsta rap group I think).

One of my hidden talents is beatboxing. For me, beatbox was not something I did as an end in itself, but rather it was just a convenient tool I developed as a drummer to quickly communicate rhythmical ideas to other musicians in a studio or jam session. Though I'm musically from a rock and soul background, as a drummer (and beatbox) I found myself in demand outside of those genres and working with artists I'd otherwise have had little in common with. I think it's one of the peculiarities of being rhythm section - there are few places where drums don't go one way or another.

So anyway, I find my 1999 self being sampled by East Coast gangsta rappers in 2011. Isn't life bizarre sometimes? How on earth does unreleased material recorded in Salford 12 years ago end up being sampled in New York now?

Well, I suppose the Niggas of Nish are welcome to sample me if they want to. I must admit, my first love musically is guitar-based bands (because that's my own background), but I do recognise that sampling can and does produce some great music.

One of the best dance/pop songs made so far in the 21st century [in fact ever] is Groovejet (If this ain't love) by Spiller featuring Sophie Ellis-Bextor, which was released in the UK in the summer of 2000. The music of this classic dance song was almost entirely constructed by producer Spiller from disco samples.

When they write my epitaph, will I be best remembered as a Niggas of Nish sample, or for being an MP? Only time will tell. One thing I do know... I've never met Sophie Ellis-Bextor and I probably should. And another... I have work to do, I'm on this planet for a purpose.

Hallelujah and Boo-ti-ka-ka-ti-boo-ti-ti-ka-ka...

Good News!

2011-09-27T18:24:00.001+01:00

Good News!

EXCLUSIVE: Sandy Hankin, the British Heidi Fleiss

2011-09-26T16:09:00.007+01:00

This is Sandy Hankin, the British Heidi Fleiss. Sandy is the Sandy of the Sandy's Superstars brothels. Tomorrow is exactly 11 months since I first reported the Sandy's serious and organised crime gang to Greater Manchester Police. You may ask why haven't the police shut down the Sandy's brothels and prosecuted the brothelkeepers yet? That's a very good question. You may ask why hasn't the Manchester Evening News reported on the Sandy's case this year, despite it being common knowledge on the internet? That's also a very good question. If you have any information on Sandra Jane Hankin please pass your information either directly to the police or give your information anonymously via Crimestoppers.

New Video

2011-09-24T18:31:00.004+01:00

New video

A fair trial for Dr Richard Scott?

2011-09-23T15:30:00.008+01:00

Today and yesterday I attended the General Medical Council hearing of the case of Dr. Richard Scott (pictured, with barrister Andrea Minichiello Williams). After one-and-a-half days of legal argument, the GMC panel today adjourned the case in order to attempt to arrange for Dr. Scott's anonymous accuser to attend the hearing. Dr. Scott's accuser did not attend the two-day hearing. If Dr. Scott had been charged with a criminal offence, the case against him would've been thrown out of court by now; but Dr. Scott's case is not before a court of law - rather Dr. Scott is caught up in the quasi-judicial minefield of tribunal land. If Dr. Scott is to receive a fair hearing, his defence barrister ought to have the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. One does not need to be an eminent lawyer to see how manifestly unfair it would be to deny the defence an examination of the only witness against Dr. Scott. That being said, a tribunal hearing can proceed without the accuser being required to attend, and it is most likely that when Dr. Scott's case recommences [probably next year] his accuser will again avoid attending to testify against Dr. Scott and to face cross-examination. Barrister Paul Diamond, lead counsel for Dr. Scott, observed to today's hearing how: "It is very easy to make a complaint if you don't have to substantiate it in a public hearing." I'm appalled that Dr. Scott has already been through a two-day hearing to which his accuser did not have the decency to turn up, only to face the prospect of weeks or months more of stressful waiting for the recommencement of a case which - if there was any justice - should already have been dismissed. A good family doctor is going through an appalling and unnecessary ordeal because of an unwarranted and vexatious complaint.

I don't wear Chris Bryant Y-fronts

2011-09-21T16:33:00.004+01:00

Honestly, the number of people who keep ripping off my photos. For the record I do not wear Chris Bryant Y-fronts (and I'm not that weedy either).

Salford City Council meeting 21 Sept 2011

2011-09-21T14:22:00.006+01:00

I managed to catch an hour-and-a-half of Salford's full council meeting this morning from the public gallery; I haven't been for a while and it seems little has changed during my absence.

Young Toryboys Cllr. Chris Clarkson and Cllr. Iain Lindley were not sat next to each other holding hands... that's a couple of men who no doubt support the re-definition of marriage.

Whilst I was there in person, there was much OTT eulogising of erstwhile Salford council leader and old-school Labour tough man Cllr. Hough. I think it was Labour's Cllr. Jim King who gave far and away the most stomach-churning and over-long speech in worship of the mighty man.

Quite frankly, if Hough was such a great and visionary leader for Salford, and with the real power he had to effect change, may I ask why [with Labour in power in Salford since 1974] Salford remains a complete 'hole? I can't say that I see Hough has any special legacy worth celebrating. But if there's one thing councillors (of all parties) love to do, it's praising other councillors past and present, so the extended worship session did not surprise me.

The only other thing addressed in the time I was in the gallery was the matter of the proposed boundary changes to parliamentary constituencies. Unsurprisingly there was unanimous opposition from the whole council to any changes. Will there still be the Salford and Eccles constituency and the Worsley and Eccles South constituency next time? Somehow I suspect not, but it won't be for lack of a vociferous defence of the status quo from a united Salford City Council.

I had to go when the meeting broke for a late morning comfort break. The Salford Advertiser photographer was there and when the councillors were told to meet on the steps outside for a photo session during the break, well... it was like firing the starting gun to the Olympic 100 metres final. Quite a scrum.

I've just had a quick glance at MEN reporter Jennifer Williams' later tweets from the meeting and I note that Cllr. Bill Hinds thinks that Salfordians would not be stupid enough to vote for an elected mayor in the forthcoming referendum.

Well, they were stupid enough to vote Hazel Blears back in after Kitkats had been clearly exposed as a major offender in the expenses scandal. So who knows whether Salford will vote for or against an elected mayor?

[Actually I should qualify that last point. One in five of the Salford and Eccles electorate voted for Hazel; the other four either didn't vote or voted for somebody else. But you get my point.]

Speaking of Jennifer Williams, if you're interested in journalistic goings-on, well, she's a young madam to watch for the future. She could go far.

There's a sense in which I do pity the Commander of the British Empire (JM) for having to go through the full council charade. It's basically a waste of a day for him before he and his close Labour colleagues carry on regardless with running the city. I ask you, what possible benefit is there in listening to the likes of the pitiful Lib Dem Norman Owen? The Commander just has to sit there and listen to the nonsense, which - believe me - takes some doing. As a political activist I've had to sit through hours and hours of court cases and committee meetings so I know the feeling. When you want to stand up and yell at Norman, "Sit down and shut up, you fg silly daft bugger you're completely wasting my time!!!" but instead you just have to listen, listen and listen some more until he's made his utterly inconsequential contribution. Nobody said politics is easy; it can sometimes be a real trial.

I've attended Salford full council on many occasions, and in my experience it's extremely rare that any serious productive business is transacted in full council - it's just an inconvenience for the Commander, and a rubber-stamping exercise for the dominant Labour group. Egos are massaged. Backs are slapped. There are red-on-blue slaggings off and blue-on-red slaggings off - all of no consequence. And then there's Norman, who still, farcically, has to be treated as a party group leader. About the only consolation for subjecting oneself to spectating on full council from the public gallery is Chief Executive Barbara Spicer. Long live the Queen!

The 2011 Arab revolts are more likely to lead to islam than democracy

2011-09-20T22:21:00.003+01:00

I've yet to comment on this year's popular uprisings in various Arab countries (Egypt, Libya, Syria). There's only one point I'd really like to make public right now: the downfall of the old regimes and the recent revolts are much more likely to facilitate the resurgence of hardline islam than the emergence of liberal representative democracy. Arabs just don't do democracy - they do islam; the only democracy in the middle east is Israel and that is likely to remain the case. The scenes in David Lean's classic film Lawrence of Arabia (1962) of the hopeless chaos of the 'Arab Council' in Damascus does come to my mind right now. We are never going to see Arab countries functioning anything like Western democracies - it's sheer fantasy. What remains to be seen is how the upheavals in Arab countries impact upon Israel.

Pro Family Freedom petition regarding PayPal

2011-09-20T21:16:00.003+01:00

I've signed the Pro Family Freedom petition which seeks to protect several US American groups which are under attack from militant homosexual-perverts who are trying to get PayPal to ban the groups from using the PayPal service. Please sign the petition - it takes just a few seconds to sign.

This kind of thing is going on all the time now. Homosexual-perverts are determined to silence and harass anybody who disagrees with their lifestyle choice. In my own experience, I am a regular target for homosexual-pervert activists and sympathisers. Pervert activists regularly report me to the police for so-called 'hate crime' and make all manner of other vexatious complaints to the companies which host the various parts of my current web presence. It makes no difference to me: I will continue to speak out the truth with love. To date, the police have very prudently avoided taking me on in what would be an internationally reported freedom of speech case. It would be ironic if the hosts of any of my blogs do pull the plug, given the vast amount of hardcore pornography and other extreme and evil content which they host. It would also be a worthless result for my enemies - a minor inconvenience for me to have to set up new blogs elsewhere on the web (and in the long run my web presence is heading for my own privately-owned servers in any case). The attacks will keep on coming no doubt, given that there are actually people [and they're always anonymous] motivated enough to run dedicated anti-Carvath blogs and campaigns on the internet.

And what is their problem any way? I think the chief reason why I am so heavily targeted is because I use the word Pervert in referring to homosexuals. Perverts think that this is 'hate speech' and a 'hate crime.' Of course it is neither. I love homosexual-perverts; I do not hate any human being.

The truth is: homosexual behaviour is perverted. My Penguin English Dictionary (2002) gives the following definitions:

" perversion n 1 the act or an instance of perverting. 2 something perverted, esp abnormal sexual behaviour.

pervert1 v 1 to cause (somebody) to turn aside or turn away from what is good, true, or morally right; to corrupt. 2a to divert (something) to a wrong use or purpose; to misuse. b to twist the meaning or sense of (something); to misinterpret.

pervert2 n a person given to some form of sexual perversion.

perverted adj marked by perversion, esp sexual perversion. "

That people who engage in sodomy and other homopervual activity are perverts by definition is medical fact, moral truth and common sense! The word 'pervert' is not in any sense a profane, abusive or hateful word; its straightforward meaning and correct application are obvious. It is quite wrong to encourage perverts [or broader society] to view their deviant behaviour as normal: I find that to use the word 'pervert' is an effective way to convey the truth.

Richard Carvath to challenge Chris Bryant MP for Rhondda?

2011-09-20T19:17:00.004+01:00

The next couple of years are going to be an interesting and challenging season of my life - of that I have no doubt. As a political activist, one of my major objectives is to win a General Election and thus make it into the Westminster Parliament. From where I stand right now, it's a very big challenge indeed. And where, when and for whom will my next time be? A group has recently invited me to consider taking on Labour's Chris Bryant MP for the Rhondda constituency at the next General Election. (That's Chris in his infamous underpants photo.) Chris Bryant is exactly the sort of incumbent MP I'd relish taking on in terms of ideology and in view of his track record, however Rhondda is a very safe Labour seat and I am not Welsh. I'm keeping my options open for now, so I certainly don't rule out the possibility of challenging Chris Bryant in Rhondda. One thing I have to keep pointing out to those who want to see the Carvath breakthrough into Parliament is basically: 'Show me the money.' I contested Salford and Eccles against Hazel Blears with no money. I am not standing again without a suitable war chest (and other necessary campaign infrastructure). Quite honestly for me to take on Rhondda - such a big challenge for obvious reasons - I don't think I'll be accepting that proposal unless there's a guaranteed minimum of £20,000 available to spend on the campaign. For anybody weighing up the tantalising prospect of a well-funded Carvath versus Bryant fight (given what we both stand for), it goes without saying that it would be an utterly brutal election battle. I must admit, in my heart I could genuinely see me going for Rhondda if Bryant is the Labour candidate... but my head says 'Show me the money' before I commit to the next time.

Adventures in Belloc and the Well of Wisdom

2011-09-19T20:05:00.006+01:00

My educational progress continues. Lately I'm being schooled in (the best) works of Hilaire Belloc (1870 - 1953), famously a writer and academic but also the Liberal MP for Salford South (1906 - 1910). Though Belloc was a Catholic - indeed he was fanatically Catholic - there is much merit in Belloc's works for me as an Evangelical and a conservative. I detect something of a kindred spirit: the sheer force; the vision; the satire; the tactics; the activism; the refusal to compromise core principles. As an anti-socialist, and as one with no great love for the worst elements of capitalism either, I am finding Belloc's distributist ideas worthy of deep consideration. Amongst other things I also like Belloc's prescient understanding of islam; what he wrote in the 1930s certainly rings true today. It seems Belloc's first principles are often water drawn from the well of Thomas Aquinas. Though I will never become a Catholic [not least because a Hebraic mind cannot countenance Greek humanistic influences], as an Evangelical I find that there is much to be gleaned from Catholic thinkers about the application of 'moral science' to the pursuit of a political objective. And I also appreciate Belloc's thought on economics themes from a realist perspective. Perhaps my only dilemma if and when I become an assured practitioner of moral science lies in the questions of to what extent politics is a rational activity anyway, and to what extent is political power in any particular set of hands not just a manifestation of whatever spiritual principality it happens to be rooted in? One thing I do know: thinking hard is a perilous activity. What I can conceive with my mind is no substitute for listening to revelation from a much better source - indeed from the well of wisdom Himself.

Cameron IS in the driving seat over re-defining marriage - not the Lib Dems

2011-09-19T18:19:00.006+01:00

Well, two days ago the cat was finally let out of the bag regarding the planning in Westminster for the re-definition of marriage - as I exclusively revealed two weeks ago. Read a news article on this issue from the Christian Institute here.

At the time of my web exclusive, I did not know for definite whether David Cameron's plans for the re-definition of marriage would emerge first as Conservative Party policy or Coalition Government policy. Now we know. Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone has committed the Coalition Government to statutory legislation to re-define marriage by 2015.

The Government is to commence a public consultation on the issue next spring. Of course, the Government's mind is already made up. As I revealed in my web exclusive two weeks ago, the re-definition of marriage legislation is already being drafted.

Contrary to what Lib Dem Lynne Featherstone has claimed in public (at the Lib Dem party conference), the Coalition Government's re-definition of marriage agenda is not being driven by the Lib Dems (although they are undoubtedly enthusiastic lap dogs).

Let's be clear: the Coalition Government's declaration of intention to re-define marriage originates with Prime Minister David Cameron, and those close to him at the top of the Conservative Party.

My Millbank sources - the same who gave me my exclusive two weeks ago - have today confirmed to me yet again just how genuinely passionate David Cameron is personally about re-defining marriage. The re-definition of marriage agenda is not coming from the Lib Dems; it's coming directly from the heart of David Cameron and LGBTory.

If anybody still doesn't get it: David Cameron is not a conservative. David Cameron does not have a conservative bone in his body. The Conservative Party was hijacked in 2005 and it has never been the same since.

As has been written about before, the reason why I was kicked out of the Conservative Party is because I hold traditional conservative views - and I am one of many conservatives to have been purged from the party in recent years. Many true conservatives have sought refuge in UKIP; I have yet to join them and it is by no means certain that I will go there yet; I have that option on the table. I was even kicked out of the Conservative Christian Fellowship because the Conservative Party Chairman, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, ordered the spineless CCF leader David Burrowes MP to expel me from the supposedly independent Christian Tory group based in the Millbank HQ premises. Just how much of an inconsequential muppet is David Burrowes was exposed in the Commons last week when in Prime Minister's Questions he sought prime ministerial support for the Global Day of Prayer and David Cameron simply didn't bother to answer on that point. The CCF is not "making an impact" in the Conservative Party as its motto claims; the CCF serves primarily to con stupid Christians into believing that they are welcome and have a voice in the party, when nothing could be further from the truth. There is currently no meaningful Christian powerbase within the Conservative Party. There are still one or two good Christian Conservative MPs but they are isolated; theirs is an impossible position and they have to be incredibly careful in how they operate. Power with discretion is one thing - an iron fist in a velvet glove - but, to coin a phrase, Christian MPs in the Conservative Party are currently 'All rubber and no cock.' Can you imagine David Cameron responding in the same way to me as he did to David Burrowes if I'd asked a similar question? Cameron wouldn't dare. But David Burrowes is a weak twit easily dismissed - as we saw in PMQs.

It's sickening, knowing how the Conservative Party has been taken over by David Cameron just as Labour was by Tony Blair. Indeed there is little to distinguish Cameron from Blair - they are so alike; the main difference is that Blair's massive landslide gave him a much stronger hand than Cameron; the difference is not that of ideology or of style but only that of relative power to govern. It's ridiculous that people like myself are persona non grata in the Conservative Party. If I was accused of being a conservative, would there be enough evidence to convict? Of course there would. If I'm not a conservative then I don't know who is. But David Cameron is no more a conservative than John Bercow.

I repeat, the drive to re-define marriage is coming from David Cameron personally. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say in the wake of Featherstone's announcement. In the Conservatives' and the Lib Dems' unholy coalition marriage, be clear that it is the Lib Dems offering up the bum, not the other way round: Cameron only 'gives ground' if it suits him anyway; Cameron is certainly the chief architect of the marriage re-definition agenda; the idea that Lynne Featherstone might've led Cameron over anything at all is laughable.

Conservative Party conference is just around the corner...

SPUC Annual Pro-life Conference 2011

2011-09-18T19:38:00.003+01:00

How I began

2011-09-18T19:35:00.004+01:00

Homosexual-Pervert John Barrowman attacks marriage

2011-09-16T09:45:00.004+01:00

BBC actor and homosexual-pervert John Barrowman has attacked the institution of marriage and slagged off the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. Mr. Barrowman, who is on record as saying "I was born this way," mistakenly believes that he was born a pervert. Mr. Barrowman is actually heterosexual - just like every other human being - because human beings are heterosexual by nature. Mr. Barrowman presumably has a penis (as he is a man); this should give Mr. Barrowman a big clue as to his natural sexual compatibility with... a woman. Let's hope that Mr. Barrowman gets the help he needs to reject his homopervual delusion and embrace his heterosexual nature. And pray God that the true definition of marriage is preserved in Scotland.

Perv Minister Cameron and his anti-Christian pro-Perv agenda

2011-09-14T19:46:00.005+01:00

Read this and weep. It's pretty obvious that Perv Minister David Cameron is anti-Christian and pro-Perv.

So Cameron wants to make the UK a global centre of excellence for sodomy.

Take heed of my warning (on this blog earlier this month) that Cameron is probably going to launch his re-definition of marriage agenda at party conference in a couple of weeks.

Straight talking from Christian Institute's Mike Judge

2011-09-14T19:17:00.004+01:00

Mike Judge is a good geezer. Mike is boss of communications at the Christian Institute. If you ever want a public speaker or a media guest, Mike is great. It's a while since I've seen Mike in person - last time was a couple of years ago at Liverpool Magistrates when it was the Vogelenzang freedom of speech trial. Britain needs more good men like Mike who know their media onions and who have the resources and the credibility to make a national impact for good. Why not go on the Christian Institute website and give a donation towards the excellent work of Mike and his colleagues? Anyway, I just want you all to go and read this top comment from Mike Judge about blood donations and the HP brigade (and then make a donation - and don't be a skinflint, give generously why not).

The Disappearing Horse Ad

2011-09-14T03:34:00.004+01:00

I loved Black Beauty when I was a little boy; a classic novel (and several good screen adaptations). Maybe one day I'll take up horse riding myself, but in the meantime, hopefully I can fit in a little literary refreshment courtesy of Anna Sewell before Halloween.

I wonder if Chloe the horse has gone to a good home yet? I noticed that the horse4trade ad disappeared.

I'm not sure whether advertising a horse on French Facebook is such a good idea - the buyer might want to eat Chloe the horse rather than ride her.

Adhorse

Cheshirehorse

Facebook

Thehorseexchange

Sarah Louise Lambert: living proof that women really do talk much more than men

2011-09-12T14:42:00.005+01:00

Ok, I admit this post has nothing to do with politics...

I would like to cite Sarah Louise Lambert - aka Tracey Louise - as anecdotal evidence that women really do talk much more than men.

As a man, I can probably manage to speak several hundred words a day. Sarah Lambert must be off the scale - probably tens of thousands of words a day. As a political writer and blogger, I only hit 1,000+ wordcounts if I'm writing an essay to consider a very large subject matter (for example, the economics of the People's Republic of China). But Sarah pulls off lengthy blog-posts every day simply to diarise her daily deeds for the blogosphere. I must admit, I'm mildly impressed by the commitment and the sheer energy of the lass, even if - as a man - I have a limit as to how interested I am in handbags, holidays, relationships and all the usual stuff which most women tend to go on and on about. Depending on whether you're male or female, it's a diary or it's diarr****

Now, Sarah probably is exceptional. She probably is what we might refer to as a 'lioness' kind of a woman. She plays rock guitar, she blogs, she models (including some 'modelling') and she runs her businesses. And above all she probably talks. My point is: even though Sarah probably exceeds the average woman, it is surely a fact that women talk more than men.

All of which begs the question, if you're a man, how do you tame a woman's tongue sufficiently to say and do those things which occasionally a man really must when dealing with a woman?

Being firm? Kissing? Shouting? Hoping that if you wait long enough she will finally pause for breath?

Goodness knows how I would handle Sarah Louise Lambert if I had to deal with her!

When I have a conversation with another man, we can do the whole thing in 5 minutes. When I have a conversation with a woman, it can be at least half an hour discussing feelings before anything practical is agreed.

I remember once speaking with a woman and she said, "So-and-so's just got a new car."

I asked, "Oh, what kind of car is it?"

The woman's reply was, "It's a blue one."

Yes, it's a strange business trying to understand women. They can be a mystery. And they can talk for England.

God Bless the United States of America

2011-09-11T20:30:00.004+01:00

What an appalling and shameful act it was that took place in my nation's capital city earlier today: several dozen muslims desecrated the flag of the United States of America outside the US Embassy. Presumably many of these muslims are 'British.' They may have British passports. They may even have been born in Britain. But they are not truly British in my book. Dancing on graves is not the British way. Abusing Britain's tolerant notion of freedom of speech to deliberately cause serious offence to others on the occasion of a solemn act of remembrance is not the British way. And of course - as true followers of Mohammed - they would not identify themselves as being British either; genuine muslims identify only with their sought after global caliphate of islam (in which there are no sovereign nations). I am not an apologist for the USA; there is much that is wrong with contemporary American society; I strongly dislike much of what President Obama has done in office. But burning flags is not the answer. There is only one answer I know to the passionate hatred of the muslims, and to America's ills... it is the Cross. The crescent will never triumph over the Cross, and the nation which is faithful to a Christian foundation will not falter or fail. May the followers of Mohammed become followers of Jesus. May the British and American nations repent and return to their Christian roots. God bless the United States of America.

Sandy's Superstars brothels gang update

2011-09-10T21:10:00.003+01:00

Well, if top-level GMP force gossip is correct, the ongoing investigation into the Sandy's Superstars serious and organised crime gang has been passed on to a different force. If so, that would tend to confirm suspicions about the GMP force being infiltrated by Manchester crime barons; furthermore, if another force is now on the job it means we can probably expect to see some action. My guess is the Sandy's gang are due for getting The Knock. It may well be that brothel madam Sandy Hankin will spend her 50th birthday in jail if the police go in some time soon. Anyway, I keep being asked to help the police with their enquiries... the man in the photo is top Manchester vice gangster Mark Hankin - if you have any information on Mark Hankin (or Sandy Hankin) then pass it on to the police, either directly, or anonymously via Crimestoppers.

So has Chloe been sold yet?

2011-09-09T04:12:00.003+01:00

So... has Sarah Hankin sold Chloe the horse yet?

Sarah obviously has a lot more money than I've ever had. I understand that Chloe was first advertised in the region of £7,000. Though the asking price has come down, at over £4,000 Chloe the horse still costs double what I as a 35 year old man have ever spent on buying a car... and I've certainly never bought and kept a horse!

To be selling a horse for £4,000+ at the tender age of 22, well, all I can say is Sarah Hankin must be doing very nicely indeed in life.

We ordinary mortals can but wonder what it must be like to live like the rich. Has Sarah made a fortune of her own so young in life or has she had a helping hand from rich parents?

Mum and dad own the Sandy's Superstars brothels. Thankfully Sarah is only selling a horse - not women. The horse trade is rather more acceptable than the vice trade.

New rules on pervert blood donations

2011-09-08T16:48:00.004+01:00

Dear oh dear. In what I believe is a retrograde step, the rules on male homosexual-perverts donating blood have just been changed. I've no doubt that this change has been driven more by the political influence of the pervert lobby as led by Stonewall than by sound consideration of the best interests of people in need of blood. I haven't time to analyse the propaganda in the above linked pervert 'news' source, but any right-thinking reader can suss out the real motives behind this latest decision and also predict where this issue will go in the future if the perverts are allowed to have their way. The militant perverts are still not happy with the new state of affairs; militant perverts are never happy until they get exactly what they want - and so their demands will just keep on coming. I am not a medical expert but I am willing to predict right now that this will end in tragedy: the more the hurdles for male perverts donating blood are lowered, the greater the risk of innocent people being infected by contaminated blood. Adverse consequences to the new state of affairs ought to be expected (it's common sense). Yet another sad day in Broken Britain.

The MPs that fell for it

2011-09-08T00:24:00.006+01:00

I've just been having a look at the list of those MPs who voted for Nadine Dorries' abortion counselling amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill yesterday. I can hardly believe some of the MPs who voted for the Dorries amendment: Jim Dobbin, Fiona Bruce, David Burrowes, Andrew Selous...

These are genuinely pro-life people who voted for what in reality was clearly a 'pro choice' amendment. How could these MPs take such a narrow and simplistic view of what Dorries was proposing as to blind themselves to the truth that the Dorries amendment was no more than wishful thinking in terms of its stated objective, as well as a dangerous door-opener to future attacks on pro-life counsellors, doctors and nurses? Did these MPs think that in supporting the Dorries amendment they were simply voting for the principle of preventing Marie Stopes and BPAS from counselling [a good aim] and nothing to the detriment of the pro-life agenda, and did they think that the amendment was actually going to be enforceable in reality if enacted (given that BPAS and Marie Stopes would've simply set up 'independent' front groups and given that they enjoy the full ideological support and financial patronage of the Department of Health)?

I'm very disappointed by some of these people. Genuine pro-lifers who voted for the Dorries amendment were at best taking a very narrow view - looking only at the principle of the amendment, whilst wilfully ignoring its being unenforceable and the significant broader risks to the pro-life agenda - or at worst they were well and truly sucked in to believing that the amendment was all good (in both principle and application).

There is theory and then there is the practice. Principles have to be applied. Nadine Dorries even said in her speech to the Commons yesterday that she did not seek to reduce the number of abortions taking place by means of her amendment (and yet some pro-lifers still backed her?!).

In order to support a proposed primary legislative amendment in a Parliamentary vote, I believe all of the following criteria ought to be met:

(1) The amendment must be wholly good in principle [it must introduce something morally right, and nothing morally wrong];

(2) The amendment must be workable and actually able to achieve its core principle in practice if enacted;

(3) The amendment must not open the door to foreseeable adverse side-effect consequences which will compromise or negate its core principle.

Any intelligent pro-lifer having done just a little homework would've seen that the Dorries amendment certainly failed to meet (2) and (3). And only a very narrow and frankly rather credulous view of the Dorries amendment would see it as fulfilling (1), given that Dorries herself was honest enough to publicly admit that (a) her amendment was not intended to reduce the number of abortions taking place, and (b) she is opposed to pro-life pregnancy counselling (for not being 'neutral') just as much as counselling from abortion-providers. Whilst Dorries' commitment to the principle that abortion-providers ought not to counsel pregnant women (because of their vested financial interest) was a laudable aim, that was completely cancelled out by her openly admitted hostility in principle to pro-life pregnancy counselling and by her complete lack of principled desire to reduce the current high level of abortions.

As a pro-lifer, whilst I'm glad that the Dorries amendment was defeated, I fear that this episode has nonetheless worsened the risks to the pro-life agenda which now look likely from imminent government consultation and subsequent Department of Health rules ('guidance') on abortion counselling - rules which are very unlikely to harm the interests or activities of the abortion industry but which will probably make life even harder for pro-life doctors and counsellors.

Thank God Nadine Dorries amendment defeated

2011-09-07T17:17:00.005+01:00

Well, the Dorries/Field amendment was defeated this afternoon. Pro-lifers should now mark well this statement from SPUC.

Motives, tactics, principles, WISDOM

2011-09-07T15:35:00.005+01:00

I really wish I was an MP in the debating chamber of the House of Commons right now. I'd be there to expose and rip apart Nadine Dorries' Trojan Horse of an 'independent' abortion counselling amendment in debate.

This afternoon the Dorries/Field amendment to the Health & Social Care Bill will be debated and voted on. I am pro-life and I cannot support the Dorries/Field amendment (much less the Mensch amendment) in good conscience.

In the Daily Express today, there's a highly irresponsible short piece by Ann Widdecombe urging support for the Dorries/Field amendment. I've met Ann Widdecombe several times and I know she is genuinely pro-life, ideologically speaking. I also know she's experienced enough in politics to be capable of spotting the dangerous flaws in the Dorries/Field amendment. That's why I'm astounded by her support for the Dorries/Field amendment and her claim that it is pro-life.

In Widdecombe's piece she asserts: "Today's vote will test not only principle but courage. If your MP of whatever party claims to be pro-life then watch how he or she votes." Unbelievably, Widdecombe has essentially claimed that the Dorries/Field amendment is pro-life and that anybody who does not support it is not pro-life!

THE DORRIES/FIELD AMENDMENT IS NOT PRO-LIFE.

I'm a pro-life Christian but - as a political activist - I'm a lot less naive than most Christians seem to be these days. Since the 1980s there have been several instances in Parliament in which the pro-life lobby has failed to achieve pro-life objectives (or worse, unintentionally opened the door to pro-abortion legislation) either by compromising on principle or by tactical stupidity.

The pursuit of politics is much to do with having the right strategy and tactics to achieve one's aim. It doesn't have to look pretty - but it does have to work. There's no point having a good and noble moral objective if you lack the political wisdom (and muscle) to achieve it.

There is nothing wrong with the principle of the Dorries/Field amendment on the face of it. Of course abortion-providers should not be allowed to counsel women; of course they have a vested interest. Of course pregnancy counselling should be independent of abortion providers.

The principle that the amendment seeks is good... but then we need to apply some wisdom:

(1) Nadine Dorries is not pro-life; she is on public record as being pro-abortion.

(2) There is nothing in the amendment which will prevent abortion-providers from simply establishing 'independent' front groups to give counselling and make referrals.

(3) Nadine Dorries is on public record as opposing the involvement of pro-life groups in counselling pregnant women (because they are not 'independent' either).

(4) There is no evidence that the amendment will achieve the wild claims of 60,000 fewer abortions a year in the UK; this is complete pie in the sky and wishful thinking.

(5) One way or another the pro-abortion Department of Health will end up with the power to police [or at least, heavily interfere in] 'independent' counselling of pregnant women.

I'm sorry to say that genuinely pro-life principled people and organisations like Ann Widdecombe and Christian Concern have been fooled into thinking that the Dorries/Field amendment is good for the pro-life agenda. Such people have the right principle at heart but they lack wisdom. Such people are in denial of political reality.

If enacted the Dorries/Field amendment is likely to manifest as a Trojan Horse which will not reduce the number of British abortions - because the likes of BPAS and Marie Stopes will easily find ways to circumvent it - but which will give the pro-abortion Department of Health a parliamentary mandate to suppress pro-life pregnancy counselling services and providers.

What is morally wrong can never be politically right - so the famous quote goes. But the pursuit of a good principle also requires wisdom.

Well-intentioned pro-lifers are being incredibly naive if they think that the Dorries/Field amendment will actually achieve a pro-life objective. There is scant evidence or reason to suggest that the amendment will do anything other than temporarily inconvenience BPAS and Marie Stopes before it's back to business as usual. And there is sound reason and wisdom which clearly point to the danger this amendment presents to pro-life counsellors - who will inevitably end up being targeted for not being 'independent.'

The practical outworking of the Dorries/Field amendment if enacted is likely to be little or no long-term harm to the interests or activities of the abortion industry but massive disruption and harm to pro-life counsellors and doctors. If the amendment is enacted, I'll be very happy to be proved wrong - and see the sheer fantasy of the promised 60,000 fewer abortions a year come to pass - but I very much doubt it.

As a pro-life political activist, my frustration with the pro-life movement is that so many people who are genuinely ideologically pro-life are still so devoid of tactical nous. The pro-life cause is not new - it's been around for over 40 years. After all the parliamentary defeats over the years, pro-lifers should have more sense by now than to fall for a dangerous Trojan Horse like the Dorries/Field amendment.

Ann Widdecombe wrote: "Today's vote will test not only principle but courage." NO it won't. For the handful of genuinely pro-life MPs currently in Parliament - whose pro-life principles are not in doubt - today's vote will primarily be a test of wisdom.

EXCLUSIVE: David Cameron to re-define marriage

2011-09-05T14:01:00.003+01:00

Two reliable sources placed in the senior hierarchy of the Conservative Party have informed me that Prime Minister David Cameron is planning to make a public statement to re-define marriage in the near future.

The true definition of marriage is a lifelong exclusive union of one man and one woman. David Cameron intends to re-define marriage in order to accommodate homosexuals.

It is unclear at present whether David Cameron's re-definition of marriage will be introduced first as Coalition Government policy or Conservative Party policy.

It is thought most likely that David Cameron will make public his re-definition of marriage in his speech to the Conservative Party Conference next month.

Statutory legislation to re-define marriage is being drafted to be put before the Westminster Parliament next year.

It is virtually inconceivable that any Coalition Government Bill to re-define marriage would fail to make it onto the statute books - notwithstanding the strenuous legal challenges - simply because Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg will certainly support the re-definition of marriage.

Scottish Government consultation on re-defining marriage

2011-09-03T21:00:00.004+01:00

Here's my Save Scotland information sheet as promised. The true definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman must be safeguarded at all costs.

Time to save Scotland

2011-09-03T12:52:00.003+01:00

The Scottish Government has launched a 'consultation' on re-defining marriage to accommodate homosexual-perverts. This consultation runs until December. It may well be the case that the Scottish politicians' conclusion to the consultation has already been decided. We can be sure that the pervert lobby will give it everything they've got to bring in so-called 'gay marriage'. Now is the time to stand and fight against the evil of the perverts like never before. The institution of marriage is the essential foundation of family and society; if perverts are accommodated then this already battered institution could be pushed over the edge. The testimony of history is that any human society which rejects monogamous marriage and embraces sexual promiscuity and perversion signs its own death warrant; such societies collapse or are conquered - usually within three generations. We can be certain that if the perverts have their way north of the border then before long the Westminster Parliament will follow suit. Now is the time to save Scotland. So seriously do I take this threat to Scotland that soon I am going to issue The Richard Carvath Guide to Homopervuality which will be a short pamphlet of key facts and principles and which I hope will help to mobilise the sort of active defence against the perverts which is urgently needed. You can be sure it's going to be pure dynamite...

The best Carvath conspiracy theory I've heard in ages

2011-09-03T01:28:00.004+01:00

Well, I've recently heard the best Carvath conspiracy theory in ages. [See the Fallen Angel thread on my Hardcore Blog.] Apparently, I am in the pay of the vice trade. According to rumour, I am being paid (including, perhaps, taking free ones) by one gangster to get me to attack a rival brothel gang - whilst masquerading as a Christian vice trade abolitionist.

What can I say to that?

I would rather have a beer swigging contest against Councillor John Warmisham - on which victory my life depended - than secretly co-operate with any underworld vice boss.

When I say I'm an Abolitionist - it means I'm an Abolitionist. I don't think some brothels are better than others; if I have my way I'll shut down the lot. The idea that I might co-operate with elements of the vice trade to achieve short term objectives is utterly ridiculous... in fact, that's the day I join the Labour Party.

Quandary

2011-09-01T19:18:00.005+01:00

I'm feeling rather annoyed right now. I'm feeling annoyed with Nadine Dorries (and Frank Field). It is expected that the Dorries/Field 'independent' abortion counselling amendment will be debated and voted on next week (Tuesday 6th). Dorries' Right to Know campaign is backed by Christian Concern - an organisation which I highly esteem. And yet I've just read today's SPUC public briefing which, if I've understood it correctly, is basically opposing the amendment on the grounds that there is a lack of clarity and certainty as to whether the amendment would achieve anything good (i.e. fewer abortions) if it were to become law. Furthermore, SPUC speculate as to the possibility of various risks to the pro-life agenda which the amendment might open the door to.

As a pro-lifer, if I were an MP right now I would be metaphorically putting Nadine Dorries over my knee to give her a firm spanking, trying to get to the bottom of what on earth is going on with her amendment. In general, Nadine Dorries infuriates me in that she is heavily associated with the abortion debate and often seems to be in favour of good proposals, but she is NOT pro-life - Dorries does NOT believe in the right to life of every human being from the moment of conception until natural death - and she is on public record as supporting abortion. Dorries wants to tinker a little bit around the edges of the abortion issue but she does not seek to ban abortion. If a private spanking in a House of Commons office didn't elicit the necessary information out of Dorries, I would have to take Dorries apart publically in the debating chamber.

This is a serious matter. The abortion debate is literally life or death to real people. MPs need to be crystal clear about whether the Dorries/Field amendment is pro-life or pro-abortion so that they can vote accordingly. As a pro-lifer I would vote for something pro-life and vote against something pro-abortion. This amendment is deeply confusing. On the surface all looks well and good - it looks like something pro-lifers can and should support - but Dorries herself is essentially claiming to be 'neutral' and says she doesn't want either abortion-providers or pro-life organisations providing the 'independent' counselling she seeks. Neutral? Is there a neutral position in the abortion debate? I don't believe there is. Fundamentally you are either for or against the legal availability of abortion. To be 'pro choice' is not a neutral position - it is to support the legal availability of abortion and therefore to be against the pro-life position. Who then qualifies as the 'neutral' and 'independent' counsellor that Dorries desires? Does such a counsellor exist?

Is the Dorries amendment good or bad from a pro-life perspective? To vote for the amendment, if I was an MP, I would have to be certain that the amendment definitely furthered the pro-life agenda whilst at the same time being certain that it definitely did not introduce anything detrimental to the pro-life agenda. Otherwise I would have to vote against the amendment. Despite the Dorries amendment looking good on the outside - and despite it being supported by an organisation (Christian Concern) I've never disagreed with before - I have to say I'm persuaded by SPUC's concerns.

There is an urgent need for clarification as to what if any is the pro-life benefit of the amendment (and what if any are the risks to the pro-life agenda)? If I was an MP next Tuesday, in the event of a vote I would not vote against the advice of SPUC. Right now I'm thinking that the Dorries/Field amendment is looking more and more like a bad idea. Is there a single genuinely pro-life MP who will be able to get to the bottom of whether this amendment is good or bad and put the correct conclusion across before the vote?

Away

2011-08-16T21:06:00.002+01:00

I am taking a break from blogging for a couple of weeks. Back in September.

Inspirational catholicism in action

2011-08-16T20:42:00.003+01:00

Three days ago I joined with a pro-life catholic rosary prayer vigil outside a Marie Stopes abortion centre. These catholics are there every week to pray, to hand out pro-life literature and to counsel people before and after abortion. Over the years many lives have been saved by the prayer and action of catholic groups such as the one I attended. Women do change their minds literally as they are about to go in to Marie Stopes murder centres and thus avoid making the biggest and most tragic mistake of their lives. Do you believe in miracles? Well, at the vigil I attended on Saturday, a uniformed member of staff on the Marie Stopes murder team came out of the building, approached one of the pro-life pavement counsellors and asked for pro-life literature and a rosary; I've never known that to happen before, it was quite extraordinary.

Dot XXX pornographic domain launch 2011

2011-08-12T06:26:00.005+01:00

Later this year will see the launch of the DOT XXX (.xxx) domain. The pornographic industry is very excited about this development: watch the Loaded party video and the NBC News video in this blog-post [warning: link pornographic] by British pornographic-prostitute Katie K.

I would ideally like to see all pornography banned from the internet. Prior to abolition - which is unlikely to happen any time soon - I believe the advent of the DOT XXX domain means the time is now to demand that the Westminster Parliament legislate to permit only DOT XXX domains to carry pornographic content, therefore rendering it illegal for any British-based/owned/registered domain to be used for pornographic content unless it is a DOT XXX. Furthermore, the Westminster Parliament ought to legislate in order that the internet henceforth function in such a way that access to all pornographic content on the web is only available to the UK population on an opt-in basis.

Expenses robber Hazel Blears calls for justice over Salford looting

2011-08-10T14:33:00.005+01:00

Well, this morning I heard a very indignant Hazel Blears in a radio news broadcast being given the opportunity to say exactly what every decent person in Salford thinks (and wants to hear) about the recent spate of looting and criminal damage in Salford.

Hazel had on her best 'I'm Very Angry' voice as she denounced the criminals involved in the so-called 'riots' and called for justice to be done.

Whilst no right-thinking person would disagree with what Hazel had to say on this occasion, I just found myself thinking "I can't believe I'm hearing this" coming from Parliamentary Expenses Robber Hazel 'I Got Away With It' Blears.

I found it a bit rich listening to Kitkats Hazel tongue-lashing a bunch of thieving Salford scumbags, knowing full well that Hazel was the undisputed Queen of the Great Expenses Robbery.

I sometimes wonder whether Hazel Blears is so morally corrupt that she genuinely believes she did nothing wrong by ripping off the public in her thirteen year orgy of unjustifiable and outlandish expenses claims.

Probably she just doesn't care. She wasn't prosecuted and enough Labour muppets in Salford voted her back in regardless of what she'd done.

And my other thought on hearing Hazel on the radio this morning - in what was essentially the radio equivalent of Hazel's much loved 'photo ops' - was that my MP for Salford and Eccles isn't willing to meet me.

Hazel Blears can talk a good fight in public and perform for an indulgent media, but the truth is she's always been a political lightweight who can't cut it when it comes down to getting on with the business of serious politics.

A good idea

2011-08-10T03:29:00.005+01:00

In September last year, three months after I had an accident in which both my ankles were broken, I bought a bicycle and started using it regularly - partly as a means to restore the strength to my ankles and legs, but also motivated by the need to reduce my outgoings (because multiple fractures are very bad for your wallet, especially if you're self-employed). I soon realised that I was a 'born again cyclist.' After many years without riding a bike I had rediscovered cycling; before that the last time I was a regular cyclist was as a teenager.

Aside of health and leisure applications, cycling has its good and bad points as an alternative to driving a car or to taking public transport. I'm not ideologically anti-motorist and I never will be; I think the best transport solution for many working people is to have a car and a bicycle and to use the bike as often as possible instead of the car. Cycling is a dead loss when you need a car for passengers or for lots of shopping or luggage, when you need to arrive somewhere smartly dressed or when the journey distance is just too far to be realistic by bicycle.

However, there are numerous journeys which can be made perfectly well by bicycle. Last winter was horrendous but I found that I could still get around by bicycle - so I think cycling is a viable all year round transport option in the UK - it just required a bit more effort and the right clothing. I've found cycling to be a great way for getting about anywhere in Greater Manchester - from one side to the other in an hour or so - and where cycling really beats driving is at peak times. If you don't want to sit through rush hour gridlock, the answer is definitely get on your bike.

As for the cost of cycling, there is simply no contest between cycling and either running a car or even taking the bus - especially if you only ever travel by bike. Even if you only use £20 of petrol per week and drive an inexpensive small car, the full cost of motoring over a year is easily between £2,000 to £3,000. An annual ticket from First Bus in Greater Manchester currently costs £550. A bicycle can be bought and maintained over a whole year for well under £500.

I'm not that interested in all the green agenda nonsense about 'carbon footprints' and 'climate change' that we are constantly subjected to nowadays through mass media propaganda - I'm not and never will be anti-motorist (and cycling won't 'save the planet') - but the other good thing about bikes is that they undoubtedly have a lower impact upon the environment than cars. Also, a good quality bike in regular use but well maintained is likely to outlast a typical car. I would guess the average car today has a life of about 12 years; very few petrol cars make it to 20 and beyond in regular use. But a typical bicycle should be good for at least 20 years.

I think the Alternative Transport Bike Recycling Project which runs in Bolton is a brilliant idea. How many people have old (and not so old) bicycles sitting unused in a shed or garage? If you're not going to use your bike, why not donate it to somebody who will? As far as I'm aware, there isn't a similar bicycle recycling scheme operating in the City of Salford; perhaps there should be.

The life and soul of Sarah Whatmore

2011-08-10T00:18:00.006+01:00

I have to say I think the civic authorities and the press in Salford and Manchester have gone a bit over the top in response to the recent spate of criminal damage by gangs of teenage yobbos. Nothing has happened to remotely compare with, say, the trouble in Belfast or Gaza. Greater Manchester Police has coped with the situation without difficulty: the IRA Arndale Bomb in the 90s was a major incident; a few gangs trashing a few shops tonight is not. But the Manc press has gone into overdrive. As a political activist it's frustrating, knowing of so many really important news items that never see the light of day in the local/regional press... but some yobbos start a small fire and it's front page mega news. Well, since it's a slow news day in Manchester, I thought I'd blog about the private suit I have with the Devil over the soul of Sarah Whatmore. Not a lot of people know about this ongoing dispute I have with the Devil. Lucifer wants to keep the lass in Hell for all eternity... but I say 'No.' It's not a bet as such (though I'll happily take Satan's gold and spend it for my purposes). I think I'm going to win this one: I think Sarah Whatmore will turn away from the dark side. Let me put it this way... she's now turned 30, and she says on Facebook that she likes the RSPCA - and we all know who founded that. Now I know you may say "Come off it Richard, that's not a lot to go on" but nevertheless I'm quietly confident that the Devil will lose Sarah Whatmore.

London riots: Hooligans without a Cause

2011-08-09T20:02:00.004+01:00

The current rioting in London and other locations is mindless yobbery and crime - it is not political anarchy. The people involved are not insurrectionists motivated by a political cause but rather they are the members of Broken Britain's delinquent underclass, manifesting their broken lives and destructive lifestyles in acts of violence and vandalism. Also, the rioters are straightforwardly pursuing the acquisition of material items by criminal means.

The fundamental issue at the heart of this rioting is the moral and social breakdown of British society. It is nothing to do with poverty or lack of opportunity; these are excuses. Yes there is plenty of poverty and lack of opportunity in the UK today - and these problems need to be addressed - but poverty is not the determining factor in a person's choice to engage in criminal and antisocial behaviour: what really matters is morals (or the lack of morals).

There are plenty of poor people who do not resort to crime and who lead good lives as responsible members of society. If you look into the backgrounds of such poor people you will find good parenting, discipline, a work ethic, a respect for authority and a knowledge of the difference between right and wrong.

Any political solution to the rioting must concern itself first and foremost with the restoration of the marriage-based family in British society. That's not a quick fix, but it is the most important long-term solution to Broken Britain.

Jessica Origliasso to get Richard Carvath tattoo?

2011-08-09T00:26:00.008+01:00

Well, the word is that Jessica Origliasso - one half of Australian pop duo The Veronicas - is seriously considering getting a "Richard Carvath Rocks!" tattoo on her left buttock. Whatever next? Whilst there can be no doubt that I do rock, I can't say I approve of becoming a strange woman's bottom fetish. Just look at Jessica in this photo. Here's a good example of why I detest tattoos - especially on women. Just how revolting does this young woman's arm look? Who in their right mind would want this freaky woman with a bottle of poison (etc) permanently etched into her arm? Tattooing is body mutilation. Tattoos look awful. If you want some good advice, don't ever get a tattoo. If you're a teenager going through some weird alt-punk or gothic phase - trying to be different from everyone else (but exactly like a million other kids who all look just as sad) - then don't be stupid by getting a tattoo... but rather be smart and get some silly T-shirt instead (which you can take off when you finally grow up and join civilised society). Wake up world and realise that you are being EXPLOITED by the music industry and the mass media - whose main motive is to get you to buy into the culture they create [not you] in order to profit from your music and fashion purchases. If you think you're 'alternative' and you've bought the clothes and the music to prove it then you've been fooled; far from being culturally non-conformist you've simply conformed yourself to the will of big business. The political question is will we ever legislate to protect teenagers from being exploited by the manipulative advertising of the pornographically-minded businessmen running the music and fashion industries? Is it any wonder that British society is in such a bad condition with so many kids growing up on a diet of pornography, sexualised mainstream media, occult TV shows and violent computer games?

Orde Wingate: a Great British Hero

2011-08-05T22:14:00.006+01:00

I bet you've heard of Lawrence of Arabia but you've never heard of Orde Wingate. Amongst British readers of this blog, I guess I'd win a bet with nine in ten of you.

Well, read BloodCurse and find out about this Great British hero.

In BloodCurse I consider the period of the British Mandate for 'Palestine' (1920-1948). BloodCurse is the true story of the epic fight for the restoration of the Jews to Israel.

No Confidence in Greater Manchester Police

2011-07-27T23:57:00.006+01:00

Today is nine months to the day since I first wrote to Greater Manchester Police in regard of the Sandy's Superstars brothels and brothelkeepers.

In nine months, GMP has taken no action to shut down the Sandy's Superstars brothels or to prosecute the brothelkeepers. Over nine months I have maintained an extensive correspondence with GMP running to dozens of emails. In nine months, no GMP officer has ever written to me with an unequivocal commitment to enforce the law, and GMP has been unwilling even to confirm that the Sandy's Superstars premises are brothels. Over nine months I have repeatedly found GMP officers to be highly evasive and unwilling to confirm or deny anything of substance.

My considered opinion - informed as it is by my extensive direct engagement with GMP over the past nine months - is that GMP is able but unwilling to enforce the Sexual Offences Act 2003 upon the Sandy's Superstars brothelkeepers.

After nine months of no action but a lot of evasion, I must now publicly declare that I have no confidence in Greater Manchester Police to enforce the Sexual Offences Act 2003 upon Sandra Jane Hankin, Christopher Mark Hankin and Adrian Paul Burch.

I believe that Greater Manchester Police has granted the Sandy's Superstars brothelkeepers de facto immunity from prosecution. Furthermore, I believe that Greater Manchester Police is institutionally corrupt in regard of the whole vice trade; I believe GMP is not fit for purpose in regard of the prosecution of brothelkeepers under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

I believe that contrary to its officially stated position, GMP is tolerating the vast majority of brothels operating throughout Greater Manchester, and that this is the reason why there are dozens of brothels trading with impunity quite openly on public high streets, year after year. I believe that other than the very rare 'exception which proves the rule' - for the purpose of 'keeping up appearances' - GMP has no interest in or appetite for enforcing the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in regard of brothelkeeping offences. The Sandy's Superstars brothels are the most famous brothels in the whole of Greater Manchester and they are of national prominence; in nine months GMP has not acted against the Sandy's Superstars gang and has steadfastly avoided making any commitment to acting at some point in the future.

Though I believe that GMP has broken faith with me as a law-abiding member of the public, and despite my belief that GMP officers are on the side of the vice trade and unwilling to honour their sworn duty to uphold the law, I will continue to co-operate fully with GMP on this case to the best of my ability and within the bounds of good conscience and common sense, in the hope that GMP will yet have a change of heart and rediscover its primary role as a law enforcement organisation, and rediscover its loyalty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II rather than to brothelkeeper Sandy Hankin.

Despite Greater Manchester Police officers not wanting to enforce the law, the fact remains that they are obliged to do so. I continue to exhort GMP to shut down the Sandy's Superstars brothels and to prosecute the brothelkeepers; this case will not be concluded until GMP has enforced the law.

A much more detailed statement on this matter will be released to the general public in due course. Accredited professional journalists are invited to seek an interview or to apply to me for disclosure of case information prior to general release at my usual email address; requests will be considered on merit and on a first-come-first-served basis.

Mass murderer Breivik is evil, not insane

2011-07-26T18:41:00.008+01:00

Whenever something really horrific like the Norway bombing and shootings happens, there is speculation about whether people like mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik are simply insane. According to recent media reports, there is the possibility that Breivik will plead insanity, and we await to hear what psychological assessments are made of him by whichever 'experts' are called upon to give their 'professional opinion.'

Going off what I've read about the man and his actions in the press, my view is that Breivik is not insane - but rather evil and depraved. I think Breivik has a sound mind - i.e. he understands the consequences of his actions, and he knows that murder is morally wrong - but his mind is a depraved mind, which works in tandem with an evil heart. In his mind he knows full well that murder is wrong, but in his evil heart he wanted to carry out those murders regardless.

When Breivik carried out the bombing and shootings, his actions were premeditated and they required a high degree of intelligent planning and preparation prior to their execution (as well as a sound mind during their execution). Breivik knew exactly what he was doing and why, and he committed those murders in cold blood and sound mind.

Most murderers and other serious criminals are not insane - they're simply bad people with evil minds and evil hearts. I strongly dislike the concepts in many modern legal systems of 'insanity' and 'diminished responsibility' which lawyers play with and which often lead to acquittals or lesser charges or softer sentencing for very serious crimes.

In a truly just criminal justice system, no Judge should have any involvement in diminishing the responsibility of a criminal such that the very nature of their murder crime is actually changed to a conviction other than murder. To do so is to falsify the status of the crime that was committed, insulting both justice in principle and the victim in practice, and allows the murderer to do the proverbial - namely get away with murder.

If a person has committed murder - no question - the person should be convicted of murder - not something else - and it is only at sentencing that mental state should be considered in mitigation. Mental state should not be used to determine whether a criminal is prosecuted or not, and it should not be used to alter the crime itself. If a person commits murder, they ought to be considered guilty of murder and convicted of murder whatever their state of mind at the time.

Ahh, but what I hear you say are we to do with the woman tormented by years of domestic abuse who just 'snaps' one day and plunges the kitchen knife into the man and kills him? Well, she should still be convicted of murder, if at the time of the stabbing incident the woman was neither provoked nor acting in self-defence at that moment. The years of torment are a matter for mitigation at sentencing, but ought not to be used to deceitfully 'diminish responsibility' and convert a murder crime into a manslaughter crime.

The true definition of murder is intended homicide, and the true definition of manslaughter is simply unintended homicide. We need to return to these true definitions in our criminal justice system (as well as restore the death penalty as a sentencing option for murder). If somebody deliberately kills another person they should be convicted of murder, not something else, and their state of mind or any other circumstances should not be used to distort the true nature of the crime of murder.

'Mental Illness' is nowhere defined in British law. It is a meaningless term. In practice in the British criminal justice system today, it means what the authorities want it to mean, at their whim, and the application of the classification to any particular person is to serve the purposes of the authorities, whether the person in question really is ill or not (and often relating in particular to whether the person should be in custody or not). 'Mental Illness' is a very convenient way for the authorities to deal with awkward cases that occasionally confront them, because once a person is classified as 'mentally ill' - whether they are or not - then that person effectively ceases to have any legal rights and the authorities can then dispose of them however they like. For the British criminal justice system, getting somebody classified as 'mentally ill' - even if the person is clearly quite sane - is their licence to 'Get Away With Murder' and deal with that person however they like, and in ways that would be completely unlawful otherwise. How, you might ask, can something like that happen? Well, all you need is a bent psychiatrist or a bent psychiatric nurse to write a fabricated report on a person - it's easy as pie for the criminal justice system to set somebody up if they want to. Yes it's serious criminal malfeasance but sadly it does happen. There are plenty of bent coppers, and plenty of bent workers in police partner agencies - such as amongst social workers and the like.

Aside of the formality of the criminal justice system, to defame another person with the assertion that they are 'mentally ill' when they manifestly aren't is an increasingly common smear used in ordinary life today. The number of times I myself have been described as 'mentally ill' by anonymous enemies on the internet over the last couple of years probably runs into the hundreds (not to mention the more sinister private emails I receive). One is 'mentally ill' if one believes in Jesus; practising Christian faith is held to be 'mental illness.' One is 'mentally ill' if one expresses any criticism of homopervuality. One is 'mentally ill' if one expresses any orthodox and traditional socially conservative position in public. One is 'mentally ill' if one is radically culturally different.

Because there is no objective definition of 'Mental Illness' in law, it doesn't matter what a person does or doesn't do or what a person says or doesn't say in the presence of a psychiatrist or a psychologist, because in the context of assessment, literally anything by act or omission can be deemed symptomatic of one form of mental illness or another. And if a person is classified as 'mentally ill' or being considered for such classification then psychiatrists know that they can make up whatever they like anyway because a person so classified instantly becomes the victim of wide-ranging legal prejudices simply on account of the classification. The whole business of 'mental illness' is a dark and murky area of the British criminal justice system today. It is a vehicle to enable murderers to get away with murder - their responsibility for murder supposedly diminished so that murder is somehow transformed into another type of crime altogether - and it is also a very convenient tool in the hands of the police, their partner agencies and the courts to deal with problem people who are not mentally ill but who are easier to process if everybody pretends that they are.

I believe Breivik is bad - not mad - and he is clearly guilty of murder. I believe that the only proper sentence for Breivik ought to be the death penalty for the murders he has committed out of a sound mind and an evil and hateful heart.

Smeaton warns about mass murder advocates Amnesty International

2011-07-26T00:22:00.005+01:00

Well, SPUC boss John Smeaton has recently pointed out on his blog that so-called 'human rights' organisation Amnesty International is pro-abortion. Indeed it is. Smeaton is to be applauded for his consistent stand in publicly highlighting those 'charities' which are actually pursuing evil.

When Amnesty originally started out it was worthy of consideration as a sound organisation. Then a few years ago it suddenly decided that it no longer stood for the most important human right of all - the right to life itself.

That's why I now classify Amnesty International as being on the Evil Team - which is very sad, because it was once a good organisation (if always somewhat lefty).

You can't say you're a 'human rights' organisation at the same time as you deny the right to life and support the millions of murders by abortion going on throughout the world every year.

Sicko scientists shame Britain

2011-07-25T17:54:00.004+01:00

Sicko scientists have brought shame to Britain and offended both God and humanity since they started engineering animal-human hybrid embryos following the enactment of the diabolical Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.

I campaigned heavily on the HF&E Bill back in 2008. I attended meetings around the country and worked with Lord Alton, Ann Widdecombe, Jim Dobbin, Fiona Bruce and many others in pursuit of pro-life, moral and ethical legislation.

[The Salford Advertiser and Manchester Evening News newspapers refused to report my activities on the HF&E Bill in 2008 or even to publicise the issues when there was still time for the public to lobby their MPs. If you're wondering why I'm fairly well known as a political activist on the internet and on the politico/journo grapevine, but remain largely unknown to the mass general public - despite being involved in some very serious hardcore activism - it's because the mass media (dominated by Guardianistas and secular humanists) don't want their mass audience to know that there are people like me (and doing the things we do). The mass media know that if the masses knew about me the public would approve of much of what I stand for and what I do, and the mass media don't want to give a platform to any uncompromising social conservative as that would be dangerous to their agenda; the best policy is to ignore for as long as possible, and to ridicule and misrepresent if any coverage is given.]

The HF&E Bill turned into one of the worst pieces of legislation ever enacted by the Westminster Parliament. The progress of the Bill through Parliament was a bloodbath. The handful of good Parliamentarians did their best to mitigate the utter evil in the HF&E Bill, and they enjoyed widespread public support, but they were up against a majority of evil MPs, like my 2010 General Election opponent Hazel Blears who voted in favour of animal-human hybrids in the House of Commons.

Though it is currently legal for licensed scientists to make animal-human hybrid embryos, I sincerely hope and pray that no more of this sickening and depraved abuse will take place in British laboratories.

Mass murderer Breivik should be executed

2011-07-25T00:18:00.005+01:00

When I saw the earliest reports of last Friday's Oslo bombing and nearby shootings, my first thought was that the perpetrators of this appalling atrocity were most likely to be muslims. But no, it wasn't the muslims this time, it was a native Norweigan neo-Nazi. Not that the motive makes any difference to the victims: murder is murder, and terror is terror. Both Islam and Nazism are thoroughly evil ideologies, and people motivated by either Islam or Nazism have murdered many millions of victims in the last hundred years. During the Second World War, Islam and Nazism joined forces against the Jews and co-operated in the pursuit of the 'Final Solution.' Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem (pictured above giving the Nazi salute to SS troops), was a close ally of Adolf Hitler - and these leaders of Islam and Nazism co-operated in their pursuit of the mass murder of Jews. When we strip ideologies down to the bone, the truth is that Evil is Evil, however it manifests, be it through Islam or Nazism or Communism or whatever the evil ideology might be. An ideology is either fundamentally motivated by hatred which seeks to murder those whom it hates, or an ideology is motivated by love for all people and seeks the good of all. And it really is as black and white as that. For example, you can't love 99% of other people but hate 1%. If you don't love 100% of all people, then you're on the side of hate and evil. When it comes down to it, the fundamental motivation for any act is either Good or Evil, and any act is either Good or Evil - and God is the judge. Muslims and Nazis might seem like enemies but, as I've just demonstrated, they're both on the same Evil Team.

Justice requires that a murderer should be executed. There is no question that Anders Behring Breivik is guilty of murder, and there is no question that he ought to be sentenced to the death penalty. Norway doesn't have the death penalty for murder but now would be a good time to reinstate it (and for us too).

God's shalom be with those suffering in Norway.

Greater Manchester Police: Nine Months of Nothing

2011-07-22T22:12:00.006+01:00

You're probably familiar with the phrase 'wasting police time.' These days I believe the greater danger is the police wasting our time as members of the public (not to mention taxpayers' money). When did the rot set in and why? I think the rot really started to take hold in the mid 1990s - but I'll come back to considering why today's police are largely a waste of space in a moment.

Next week it is nine months since I first wrote to Greater Manchester Police (GMP) to notify them of the Sandy's Superstars brothels and brothelkeepers. (Brothelkeeping is a crime punishable by up to seven years' imprisonment under the Sexual Offences Act 2003).

Next week I also have a meeting with GMP in regard of the Sandy's Superstars case. Dependent upon the outcome of next week's meeting, I may or may not have a major public statement to make about Greater Manchester Police and the Manchester vice trade next week.

In nine months GMP has taken no enforcement action whatsoever against the Sandy's Superstars gang: the brothels are still there, trading quite openly on the high street, and the brothelkeepers have not been arrested or prosecuted. GMP know that the premises are brothels, and GMP know who the brothelkeepers are and where they are, but in nine months GMP has so far done nothing.

Despite the fact that it is common knowledge that the Sandy's premises are brothels, and despite the fact that the identities of the brothelkeepers are also well known - after nine months I am still waiting for any GMP police officer to confirm to me in writing that the brothels are brothels, or to confirm that the identities of the well known brothelkeepers are the people I've named, or to commit GMP to taking any enforcement action.

A woman can have sex, conceive a child, go through an entire pregnancy and give birth in nine months... but in nine months GMP can't even manage to write to a member of the public - one willing to take a public stand against serious and organised criminals - to confirm that the most famous brothels in the country are in fact brothels, much less do any law enforcement.

You might be feeling a sense of rage right now.

You might be feeling ripped off by the police.

You might be asking what you pay your taxes for.

You might be wondering whether GMP are a complete bunch of spineless and useless muppets.

I do sympathise!

I am frankly disgusted by the lack of action from GMP in nine months. I have had a large volume of correspondence with GMP over the last nine months and I have to say that GMP is a shambolic and unprofessional organisation which is not fit for purpose.

I have found police officers reluctant to give even the slightest bit of information away in emails - despite the large volume of information I have passed to GMP (and which has resulted in me being targeted by serious and organised criminals). The impression I get is of police officers who view me (the law-abiding citizen reporting crime) as the problem - not the criminals. I appear to be the object of intense suspicion: "Why on earth has this man reported crime to us?"

I have found police officers who either don't know (or can't be bothered with) the traditional English formal letter writing etiquette. What would you think of any other 'professional' person who wrote you a formal letter [by email] but addressed you by just your first name? Not "Dear Mr. Carvath," - just "Richard." Well, if you're a true English person like me, brought up with time-honoured traditional English manners appropriate to formal situations, you'd find it at the least rude and unprofessional, and probably more than that you might reasonably conclude that a deliberately contemptuous attitude in the letter-writer ought definitely to be inferred.

Can you imagine if I wrote an email to a senior police officer like Chief Superintendent Jon Rush - the Divisional Commander of Bury Division - something like this:

" Jon,

Alright pal? Are you cockin' me about? It's been nine months. What's goin' on in Dibble Tower dude? When we gonna get some action our kid?

Rich. "

And yet I get emails from police officers of the rank of Inspector (and above) who have no manners and don't know that formal English writing convention is "Dear Mr. Carvath, ... Yours sincerely,".

Now you might think I'm just being pedantic here, and though of course it's not a life or death matter, it's just one of many examples of the lack of courtesy and professionalism that I find when dealing with GMP. (By the way, a GMP Inspector is having somewhere between £45,000 and £62,000 a year in salary off you, the public.)

I'm not David Cameron - so don't call me Dave!

Is it a formal correspondence? Then it's "Dear Mr. Carvath" please, or I'll be thinking why on earth is a police officer writing to me as "Richard"? Do GMP not have manners? Do GMP lack respect?

Last year Bury Division of GMP got a £16million new headquarters (see above photo); the new police station is just 300 yards from the birthplace of Sir Robert Peel (see other photo) - the founder of modern British policing.

The traditional English concept of policing attributed to Peel is that:

The police are the public and the public are the police

The principle - to which I and other true English people still adhere - is that every citizen is responsible for maintaining law and order and keeping the peace; police officers are no different to any other member of the public except that they are paid to give their full-time attention to a role which is actually incumbent upon every law-abiding citizen.

I'm 35 years old. I'm also, as some people might say, 'old for my age'. I was born in 1976 and I have pretty good memories of what life was like in England from 1980 onwards.

England in 1980 was in effect a completely different planet to what this country is like now 31 years later in 2011.

In 1980 there was no internet and no mobile phones. People would still ask other people "Are you on the phone?" - and if you were on the phone, and perhaps wanted to call the Police, you literally did have to dial 999 on those old telephones which were essentially the same technology as from before the Second World War.

In 1980 Sunday was a completely different day to the rest of the week. There were no supermarkets or shops open for trading on a Sunday. Where I grew up as a boy in Prestwich (in Bury) in the early 1980s, the only shops you might find open on a Sunday were Jewish-owned in Jewish areas.

When I went to primary school in the 1980s, even though it was a secular State school I went to and not a Church school, we still got a Christian assembly every day and said the Lord's Prayer and sang Christian hymns every day.

In 1980 there were three channels on television and that was it - and the channels shut down and did not broadcast at all in the early hours.

1980 was a completely different world, and there was a lot less crime then than there is today, and a lot more respect for other members of society.

I could go on for a long time giving examples of how different this country was thirty years ago - and how much better and less broken a society we were in 1980 - but I want to focus on the Police. Suffice it to say, if you're reading this and you are ten or more years younger than me, then you would be utterly gobsmacked if you could get in a time machine and take a trip to 1980.

When I was a boy, I was brought up to respect (and obey) police officers - and police officers were pillars of the community. Police officers were law enforcement agents - they were not social workers (and they were not social engineers either). Lots of police officers still walked the beat back then, and police officers were overwhelmingly men (and tall men too). Female police officers were recognised as such - they were WPCs; they wore skirts and carried a dainty little handbag-sized wooden truncheon for women; there weren't very many of them and they were very rarely encountered in any dangerous front-line policing role.

When I was a boy, the police knew their place and so did the public; if you were from a lower middle class background you trusted the police without question. Most of the laws of the land were still based on Judaeo-Christian principles - not secular humanist guff - so you intrinsically knew what was lawful and what wasn't if you just knew basic Ten Commandments morality - i.e. 'don't lie, steal or be violent towards anybody' sort of thing; doing unto others as you would have done unto you.

These days you're in danger of being seen as a 'criminal' if you express traditional English Christian views on homopervuality in public, though it's within living memory that homopervual behaviour was (quite rightly) a criminal offence. How times change, and not for the better. But back in 1980, if you were a moral person you would generally always be on the right side of the law by natural default.

Back in the 1980s when I was a boy, police officers wore smart uniforms and they were polite and respectful. These days police officers look like paramilitary thugs and a lot of them act like it too. I've lost count of the number of times I've had threatening encounters with police officers on the streets in recent years - police officers coming out with f***ing this and f***ing that, police officers covered in tattoos.

For somebody of my generation and background, tattoos are strongly associated with promiscuity and criminality. When I was a boy, you just didn't see coppers covered in tattoos. These days it's not uncommon to see police officers covered in tattoos... when did British police constables become a bunch of foul-mouthed aggressive pagans who hate ordinary English people like me? Well, I'd say the rot really started to set in from the mid 1990s onwards.

Having a lot of homosexual-perverts and women in the police is a fundamentally bad idea. In my view, neither homopervuals nor women make very good police officers.

Women are the weaker gender. As a true Englishman in touch with authentic masculinity, I know my gender role is to be a protector of women and children. I find the idea of women being out policing the streets abhorrent.

It's no coincidence that the more women (and homopervuals) have come to make up the numbers of our police officers over the last two decades, the less effective our police forces have become.

As policing has been feminised, it has moved away from law enforcement and become an activity more akin to social work.

I basically find women police officers offensive: they are taking a job that a man ought to be doing, acting to their own detriment as mothers and wives [if they marry], and putting themselves into danger - something which no civilised society ought to allow. Women are far less effective than men in enforcing the law properly at street level. Women are a liability to themselves and to the public in a policing role.

Imagine a bunch of vice trade gangsters are battering down my door and I call 999 and GMP send a couple of women out; not only will I have to defend myself, but as a man it will also be incumbent on me to protect the women.

I haven't made an extensive historical study of women in British policing, but from what I have read it's no surprise to me that many sources point to militant feminists as the major driving force behind the introduction of women into policing.

In the 1930s there was nothing like the level of crime in England that there is today. In the 1930s we were a much, much safer more honest society than now.

Would you like to guess the total number of women in the police in Manchester in 1939?

The answer is six.

The fewer women you have in a police force, the better the quality of law enforcement you'll get.

I believe we urgently need to return to a society in which the police are those members of the public again - and not yobbo, tattoo-covered paramilitary thugs wearing jeans and unable to write a formal letter or smile and say "Good morning Sir."

Women ought not to be involved in front-line policing roles at all. WPC Yvonne Fletcher should never have been shot dead because a civilised society should never have allowed a woman to be in her position in the first place. Protecting the public on the street is best done by men.

And the police need to stop being social workers and start enforcing the law again. Greater Manchester Police could make a start by shutting down the Sandy's brothels and prosecuting the brothelkeepers, rather than going round to check on condom supplies.

That's what I think, but then I'm a sane man born and brought up before this country went crazy.

Journey into Life

2011-06-30T23:49:00.005+01:00

I've no idea where Barston is and the chances are I will never visit Barston. However, the website of Barston Church is where I just found this, on googling "Journey into Life."

Journey into Life is the classic evangelical Christian tract by Norman Warren, and it was good to re-read it a few moments ago.

I read two things prior to becoming a Christian on 4th May 1998 - I read the Journey into Life booklet and I read the Gospels (in a Gideons New Testament). On that basis I was convinced of the truth of Jesus Christ's claims about Himself and of my personal need of Him to be my Lord and Saviour.

I did not know at the time that becoming a Christian was not only the beginning of my Journey into Life but also the beginning of my journey into politics and activism.

Knowing one's roots is important. Having a good foundation is even more important - indeed vital. We all need to know who we are, why we're here and where we're going to in life. We all need to know what is the meaning and purpose of our life.

Is life about acquiring wealth? Is it about feeling happy? Is it about being entertained? Or is there more to life than this? I have discovered that real life is all about relationship with God.

Jesus Christ said: "I am the Way, the Truth and the LIFE." He also said that He came that we might have abundant life in Him - bearing much fruit.

I did not suppose for one moment that my calling would be that of a political activist when I became a Christian - nor would I have chosen it for myself - but... there it is.

And here I am. I'm a Christian, I'm a political activist and I'm alive.

Furthermore, it would seem that having become both a Christian and a political activist, I am now in the curious position of having little choice other than to remain alive until God graciously permits me to die. [Do take that last sentence the right way please!]

So there it is: I have life by the grace and the will of God. I have chosen to enter into life - a life given to me as a free gift from God (though that gift cost Jesus everything on the cross).

But enough about me. I'm all sorted. How about you? If you were to die right now would you go to Heaven or Hell? It's a very serious matter. If you have no relationship with Jesus then you will spend all eternity in Hell. The best advice you will ever get on this blog is this: Go read Journey into Life and follow the path set out therein.

Well done to the 23

2011-06-29T14:57:00.003+01:00

Well done to the 23 MPs who last night voted in support of Fiona Bruce's amendment to introduce tax breaks for married couples: it was the right thing to do.

473 MPs from the coalition and Labour voted against the amendment.

It is crystal clear that the Labour Party is fundamentally anti-marriage - the conduct of Labour MPs came as no surprise - but it was disappointing that David Cameron and the top tories refuse to honour the Conservative manifesto pledge to do just what Fiona Bruce proposed - and that the flimsy excuse for this is the cost to the exchequer!

The marriage-based family is the foundational building block of a strong, stable and civilised society. The lack of marriage commitment is a major reason for our current dysfunctional and sick society.

The State ought to support the marriage institution through the tax system (as it used to do), primarily because marriage is in the best interests of the welfare of everybody in society - whether married or not - and secondly because backing marriage will actually reduce financial pressure on the State.

David Cameron's conservative credentials continue to wither and die. How any genuinely conservative government could fail to back marriage and claim that it was not in the financial interest beggars belief.

Last night's House of Commons vote was a gross betrayal of the people (and of conservatism) by the Conservative Party hierarchy.

David Cameron needs to learn the difference between saying and doing. It's not good enough to say 'I'm going to back marriage' when in opposition - now that Cameron is in office and he has the power he has failed to do one of the easiest and most important things he could and should have done.

Well done to the 23 MPs who did the right thing.

Do it - for God's sake

2011-06-27T04:30:00.004+01:00

Late on Saturday I started writing what I intended to be a blog-post but which turned into a bit of an essay instead: Do it - for God's sake pdf I hope it's of interest to some of you. If you're not familiar with the 18th century abolitionist movement it's probably worth a read. If just one person is inspired by the content I will consider it worth the effort of a few hours' writing. I sometimes wonder for whose benefit are some of the articles I publish; I often write material for which I don't particularly gain much knowledge in the preparation that I didn't already possess, or I write material which doesn't really challenge me to improve as a writer, or demonstrate my writing ability to best effect. But it's not about me: I'm willing to publish articles if I think they can achieve some good, even if I'm less than thrilled about certain articles from a personal point of view. So much of what I stick out is written quickly (and suffers for it from a literary perspective). But as long as it does the job of conveying a good and easily comprehensible message then that's what really matters. 'Do it - for God's sake' is a rare example of a fairly fast splurge over a favourite theme with very little regard to form. Not that I'm apologising for the piece as it's OK. I hope several readers are blessed in the reading.

Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill

2011-06-18T15:38:00.006+01:00

I wholeheartedly support the passage of Baroness Cox's recently commenced Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill in to statute law. Caroline Cox's well-drafted proposed legislation to deal with the dangerous threat of unjust shari'ah law tribunals becoming embedded as a de facto extension of the British legal system ought to make it past every parliamentary hurdle - indeed Cox's Bill must become law if the UK is to avoid islam establishing itself as a rival to British law, jurisprudence and due process. It cannot be right that 'justice' be administered on the basis of a prejudicial bias in favour of muslims over non-muslims, or that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man: Shari'ah law is fundamentally unjust and barbaric and it should never be allowed to take root in the UK.

It is a matter of fact that the muslims are on jihad to conquer the UK, and they are making progress on several fronts - not least in regard of both the British financial system and British universities - aided by vast sums of money from the Saudi Wahhabis and others, but the muslims must be thwarted in their evil aims. Life under islam is an appalling fate I do not want to see my nation succumb to, but if our secular-humanist rulers don't stop appeasing islam soon it will rapidly become harder to hold the islamic tide at bay, let alone to turn it back. It is fortunate that the Cox Bill is likely to enjoy the broad support of our secular-humanist parliamentarians and therefore to make it in to law, and ironic that the secular-humanists who will defend the age-old British legal principle of [genuine and true] equality of all before the law by backing the Cox Bill have forgotten, never known or choose to wilfully ignore the fact that the origin of the equality principle lies in the Judaeo-Christian ethic which our lawmakers have generally despised for many years.

The whole concept and meaning of 'Equality' has been utterly perverted and debased since Tony Blair started passionately doing the bidding of the paedos and perverts lobby group Stonewall in 1997, and pro-pervert David Cameron and his homosexual-pervert dominated party is likely to make things even worse if the economy doesn't keep them occupied and they find the parliamentary time to attempt yet more 'equality' legislation (such as 'marriage' for the perverts). Though the pervert lobby in particular and secular-humanists in general have stolen the word 'Equality' and made it one of the main propaganda terms of a sinister agenda now in common currency - an agenda completely at odds with true equality - the fact remains that the true and traditional principles of genuine equality that are inherently British (and inherently Judaeo-Christian) ought to be preserved at all costs. We need to preserve what good and genuine equality is left in our laws in Britain today, as well as to get rid of all the false 'equality' legislation which has been introduced over the last decade. And for that to happen, all that's necessary is for the government of our nation to come in to the hands of decent and moral men. The Cox Bill is a vital step in the right direction.

What future the British Army?

2011-06-18T14:00:00.002+01:00

It was with dismay that I read this Daily Telegraph article published earlier today and headlined "Hundreds of Army's best soldiers apply for redundancy."

I have taken a keen interest in military affairs over the years, and had things worked out differently in my life several years ago I might now be a serving officer rather than a civilian. When I was nineteen I unsuccessfully applied to become an officer in the Royal Marines, and later, in my mid twenties, I had the backing of the Regimental Secretary of the Devon and Dorsets to go to Sandhurst but due to circumstances I did not ultimately proceed down that path. Despite never holding a commission, the military mindset has always been an influence in my life - and much of who I am and how I operate as a political activist today is essentially military in nature. Some might say that the conduct of war and the practice of politics are two sides of the same coin. From my own memory I recall the 'Options for Change' then being discussed back in 1992: the British Armed Forces have been cut and cut and cut, year after year after year, for as long as I can remember. But you can only cut so far until all you're left with is a corpse. Pruning is one thing, death by slow crucifixion is another.

It is a fundamental duty of the State to defend its citizens, to restrain evil and to maintain law and order. That requires police forces and armed forces which are fit for that purpose, with sufficient numbers of trained and experienced staff along with the necessary equipment and resources. The question has to be asked: How much further does the Government think the British Armed Forces can be overstretched before our military institutions irrevocably snap? Indeed, are UK forces not fatally weakened already?

Reading the Telegraph's article it could not be any clearer just how low morale is within the British Army. It's a very serious matter indeed when the Army is bleeding so many of its best senior officers and NCOs. With army manpower the wrong side of 100,000 and becoming steadily worse, I fear for the future of this nation. How can such a small army meet the challenge of defending a country of over 60 million people as well as conduct operations running concurrently in different theatres around the globe? Are we heading for no British Army left at all within twenty years? Will we be dependent for our defence upon a European Army?

PRC Economics

2011-06-13T23:37:00.003+01:00

Well, what can I say about my paper on PRC Economics? I have promised so I will deliver. It's on the way...

Dare I say it will be worth the wait.

Andrea Minichiello Williams

2011-06-13T23:11:00.004+01:00

Earlier this evening I attended a presentation by barrister Andrea Minichiello Williams in Aughton Park, Lancashire. Andrea couples a delightful personality with passionate dedication to public campaigning on many of the same issues I also pursue. Would that there were more like her in public life in the UK today.

The waiting game

2011-06-11T23:52:00.005+01:00

Many people are aware of my long-term goal of winning a seat in Parliament. Some people say it's a long-shot and ask if I have a Plan B to fall back on if it doesn't work out. Well, I make no secret of my ongoing availability for the job of Head Coach to the Australian Netball Team. Other than that I'm keeping my options open. Going for Parliament is proving to be a waiting game, but I have to say that a very cunning plan is starting to take shape and it just might work. It already looks as though the next General Election is likely to be the right time not to bother, but the time after that could be ideal for my next attempt. One thing's for sure, I will certainly have the necessary war chest at my second attempt. In the meantime I have to crack on with miscellaneous and generally-not-publicised gun-for-hire political activist duties. I see no reason why I couldn't spend a season in Australia coaching netball before I enter Parliament - but I don't see it as an alternative to serving as an MP. Coaching the world's greatest netballers is not the primary call on my life. It may be a great loss to netball, but I'm afraid I must continue to pursue the path to Parliament.

The National Lottery: a tax on stupidity

2011-06-11T17:36:00.007+01:00

Do you play the National Lottery? Are you stupid? If it was up to me I would probably ban the lottery because it tempts and exploits the poor in particular as well as encouraging greed and the gambling vice in general. Here are some lotto facts:

(1) The probability of any single set of six numbers winning the lottery is 1 in 14,000,000.

(2) In the year 2010/11 Camelot's total ticket sales [Lotto, Euromillions and scratchcards] amounted to £5.8 billion, of which Camelot paid out £2.9 billion to winners.

(3) Camelot pays 12% of its ticket sales as a tax to the Treasury; since the first National Lottery draw in November 2004 Camelot has paid about £16 billion to the Treasury, so the single biggest winner of the lottery - guaranteed - is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Regular purchasers of lottery tickets are essentially paying a voluntary tax on their own stupidity. And what's interesting about the tiny handful of lottery millionaires is how many of them have lost the lot - like Callie Rogers (pictured above) - and suffered personal disaster or even tragedy as a direct consequence of their lottery-winning 'good luck'. Playing the lottery is a dead loss - a fantasy best avoided.

Going Global

2011-06-11T16:02:00.002+01:00

My life has been relatively quiet in terms of public political activity for some time now, and it looks as though the rest of this year is going to proceed in like manner. This blog is relatively quiet at the moment - and right now I don't know when I'll next have a spurt of really worthy blog-posts - but this blog nevertheless draws a global audience which I've yet to stop being surprised by.

I mean, who reads this blog in Iran, the United Arab Emirates and Moldova? Why am I so popular in Russia? I'm not surprised that this blog has a regular readership from all English-speaking parts of the world, but assuming some shady characters aren't routing their connection through other countries well off the beaten track - just who has read this blog today in Peru?

Yes, Peru. According to the blog stats it is so.

Has an actual Peruvian person somehow discovered this blog? What would a Peruvian be searching for to arrive here? It's a mystery.

I know this is the world wide web, but even so I find it strange that people from so many different parts of the world actually do find their way to this obscure and esoteric blog written by a non-famous Englishman.

For what I've always thought of as a fringe blog, this blog has quite a large readership - but it's the broad range of countries that I still find bizarre. And these days the level of visitor activity remains substantial even when the level dips if I don't blog anything substantial for several weeks, as has recently been the case.

Do my readers know something I don't?

Is there something worth reading on this blog?

Do I actually have fans waiting in eager anticipation for the next time I serve up something tasty?

I think what's concerning me is whether or not I have some sort of standard to maintain.

Do I have a responsibility to keep the British end up?

If so, I hope readers won't be too disappointed when I say that I'm not likely to put out anything really controversial or 'must-read' for the foreseeable future. But by all means feel free to watch this space...

A Life to Live

2011-06-10T00:17:00.015+01:00

Today is a special day for me. Today is not the first anniversary of my death.

On the 10th June last year I became Keswick Mountain Rescue Team's Incident 66 when I fell at least 45 feet down Shepherd's Crag on to the rocks below. Needless to say it was not my intention to fall off the route I was climbing - but accidents do happen.

I didn't die instantly on impact - as one might reasonably expect - but I did sustain many serious injuries (including two broken ankles, a broken wrist, two spinal fractures, head wounds etc). I actually regained consciousness whilst still at the scene, surrounded by the rescuers, and I remember being stretchered down to the waiting North West Air Ambulance helicopter which flew me to Carlisle Infirmary.

Last year's fall was not my first near-death experience but it was certainly the most dramatic.

Death-defying experiences are a funny old business. One is never quite the same afterwards.

[I don't so much mean physically, for though my body's not 100% back to what it was (yet), I'm essentially fit and functional for normal everyday life, following one full year of natural recovery and one supernatural touch.]

The 'inner man' is changed.

God's promise preserved my life, however, one year on - and without being ungrateful - there is almost a sense of 'anti-climax' (perhaps because the fulfillment of that promise remains so distant).

It is quite something to be severely broken, only to be restored. It's a process of strengthening and refining, and many other things happen in the heart and the character too. One sees life differently afterwards. I'm the same person now as the man I was before the fall - I'm the 'same old me' - but it's also true to say that I'm profoundly different. How to explain it? Like the difference between a raw recruit and a battle-hardened soldier? Sort of.

One goes from thinking "I should be dead" to realising "I shouldn't be dead."

Have you realised you shouldn't be dead yet?

Let me tell you, defying death is all very well, but after death expect to be nagged by one of life's most awkward questions: "Now what do I do?"

I know who I am, I know why I'm here and I know where I'm going; I can see from the box how the finished picture is meant to look, but fitting those thousand jigsaw pieces together just right - the trials of this life have only just begun.

Greater Manchester Police and the Sandy's Superstars brothels

2011-05-20T14:52:00.007+01:00

I'm still on my web sabbatical - by which I mean I'm trying to keep my time spent on the web to a minimum for a few weeks so I can focus on life offline - and I intend to stay in sabbatical mode until the end of June, but I believe the time for this particular blog-post is now...

This post constitutes a partial update on the current state of affairs in regard of the ongoing Sandy's Superstars saga; I'm likely to have more to say in public later this summer.

I recently received a joint letter (dated 17th May 2011) signed by Chief Superintendent Jon Rush (Divisional Commander, Bury Division) and Chief Superintendent Rob Potts (Divisional Commander, South Manchester Division) of Greater Manchester Police. In the public interest I publish verbatim that letter here:

" Dear Mr. Carvath,

Thank you for your letter highlighting your concerns and posing certain questions in relation to a number of premises in the Greater Manchester area which operate under the title of 'Sandy's Superstars'.

Having received earlier replies from the Chief Constable's office you will already be aware of the fact that Greater Manchester Police does not operate a licensing system for brothels and where proportionate, necessary and lawful we will take both enforcement and harm reduction action.

As the Divisional Commanders for both the Bury and South Manchester Divisions, we take all reports of criminality seriously and have given the information you have provided to our intelligence hubs for development to clarify and assert the provenance of your statements. This can then be assessed in light of any offences and impact on the wider local community surrounding each of the premises. We have also re-opened dialogue with the local Neighbourhood Teams covering both locations.

Unfortunately, and I am sure you will understand, we are not about to openly discuss tactics and operations where this might hinder our overall aims.

Yours sincerely, "

I would like to make a detailed analysis of the above letter, and also to comment fully on the current situation in regard of the Sandy's Superstars gang, however at present I simply don't have the time; I may revisit this blog-post and add to it at a later date. There are just a few brief points that I will make now though:

(1) In regard of the statement that "...you will already be aware of the fact that Greater Manchester Police does not operate a licensing system for brothels..." I would say that I am aware that GMP claims not to be tolerating brothels - but I am sceptical as to whether it is actually a fact, as the evidence of well-known brothels on our streets year after year would suggest otherwise.

(2) I have reported various information to GMP in regard of the Sandy's Superstars serious and organised crime syndicate. The most important basic information which I have notified GMP of in writing are the following facts, (i) That the Sandy's Superstars premises in Bury and Northenden are brothels, (ii) that the Sandy's Superstars brothelkeepers are Sandra Jane Hankin, Christopher Mark Hankin and Adrian Paul Burch... along with (iii) a helpful reminder to GMP that brothelkeeping is a crime under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and that GMP is supposed to be enforcing the law. GMP officers have been in possession of these facts for several months now, even if they did not know this information before I told them (which is unlikely).

(3) 'Harm Reduction' policies do not work; evidence suggests that such approaches actually make the problem worse. Harm reduction does not work with drugs and it does not work with prostitution either.

GMP 'Harm Reduction' Policy = Harm Toleration + Harm Perpetuation + Harm Proliferation

Carvathian Zero Tolerance Policy = Major Harm Reduction + Major Crime Reduction

(4) So where do we go from here? What do we know? Well, we can safely assume that GMP is well aware of the Sandy's Superstars brothels and the keepers of those brothels, and has been for many months. We can also safely assume that GMP is familiar with the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Therefore, only two possibilities remain:

Either:

Sandy's Superstars brothels + Richard Carvath's official crime complaint = GMP raid Sandy's Superstars brothels + GMP arrest and prosecute Sandy's Superstars brothelkeepers

Or:

Sandy's Superstars brothels + Richard Carvath's official crime complaint = GMP do nothing + Sandy's Superstars carry on with their criminal activities

It can take up to a year for a police force to do all the work necessary to get to the point of raiding a brothel and successfully prosecuting the brothelkeepers. I first contacted GMP about the Sandy's Superstars gangsters over six months ago. By the end of this year, 2011, we can expect either that GMP will have taken action - i.e. raided the brothels and arrested the vice trade criminals - or that GMP will have taken no action. If GMP has taken no action by the end of 2011, we can safely conclude that GMP's claim not to be tolerating the Hankins' and Burch's brothelkeeping crimes is false. Personally, I would expect that action should be taken much sooner than the end of this year, so by the end of 2011 we can be absolutely certain whether GMP is lying or telling the truth about its policy regarding brothels.

Sandy's Superstars is the biggest and most sophisticated vice syndicate in Manchester - worthy of classification as 'serious and organised' - and it is of national prominence and notoriety. If GMP won't put a stop to the glaringly obvious crime that is going on in regard to Sandy's Superstars by the end of 2011, then a final and definitive conclusion can be made that GMP is tolerating brothels throughout Greater Manchester, whatever it claims to the contrary.

There is not a law-abiding citizen in Greater Manchester who would not instantly conclude that the Sandy's Superstars premises are brothels - simply by visiting the SS website (let alone the premises). Sandy's Superstars is notorious in Manchester (and much further afield). If GMP won't uphold the law in regard to Sandy's Superstars, how can the law-abiding public of Greater Manchester trust Chief Constable Peter Fahy when he claims to uphold the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and not to tolerate any brothels? Is Peter Fahy lying to the Greater Manchester public?

Greater Manchester Police has a decision to make this summer of 2011. Is GMP on the side of the vice trade criminals or is GMP on the side of the law-abiding public? One way or another, we're going to find out......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9B7dHr7Vvo

Sabbatical

2011-05-02T12:32:00.003+01:00

I am on a web sabbatical until June. When I return, amongst other things, I hope to publish a major piece on Chinese economics, and I also hope to give a public update on the matter of Greater Manchester Police, Northenden residents and the Sandy's Superstars gangsters. I'm very busy in life offline, and right now it looks as though 2011 is going to be a quiet year for me online. I'm aware that many people are interested to know where I intend to go in terms of my ongoing public political efforts following last year's General Election.

I definitely intend to contest a future General Election, although at present I do not know where, and neither do I know whether it will be the next General Election or the one after that; as I've said before, the next time I go for it I want to do so with plenty of money (and other things in place); there would be little point in repeating my first time with a similar result - it was a good result for a first attempt but the next time needs to go to another level.

Broadly speaking, in my life as a whole, I am still recovering from the consequences of last year's accident, and this ongoing process has slowed my progress in my efforts towards my long-term objectives. So 2011 does not look like being the most exciting year for me, but the important thing is simply to keep plodding along for now - and a better season will surely follow.

Right now it looks as though the fall-out from the accident is going to set back the various things I have on my political agenda by between 18 months and 2 years. For example, I would very much like to see my (long-planned) new website come to fruition - not least because I am far from happy with my current web presence - but I can't push things along any faster than I am doing at present, so patiently I must persist.

See you some time in June...

Pro Life Chains

2011-04-30T08:54:00.010+01:00

Did you watch the Royal Wedding yesterday? I did. What a remarkable display of magnificent British pageantry (at the heart of which, I sincerely hope and pray, is the commencement of a good and lifelong union for the newlyweds). It is estimated that about half a million people turned out onto the streets of London yesterday to wish the newlyweds well. May God bless the union of our future King and Queen.

Imagine that crowd of half a million people multiplied by [at least] 14, and you've got the [over] seven million British people who have been murdered by abortion in this country since 1967. Later this morning I will join with other pro life activists in taking to the streets around our country as part of the annual SPUC Pro Life Chains, to bear witness to the ongoing Great British Abortion Holocaust. There won't be so many of us on the streets witnessing to the horror of the British abortion trade as there were celebrating the Royal Wedding yesterday, but - in standing with the unseen seven million - we belong to a much bigger crowd than that.

In considering the state of our nation, the last 24 hours is indeed a period of great contrast. The great display of Britishness that was the Royal Wedding could not be further removed from the day-to-day reality of the parlous condition of the British economy or the appalling dysfunction and depravity of our society in 21st century Broken Britain.

I hope that some great good will come out of the Royal Wedding - first and foremost for the couple themselves. Yes it was a spectacular event in the life of the nation. Yes it was entertaining. Yes it unified many millions of people in a shared experience. But at the heart of it all was the beginning of the marriage of a very important man and woman.

And at the heart of marriage is the beginning of new life itself - the gift of children. I hope that in the coming years William and Catherine will excel in fulfilling their royal duty to God and country. And I dream that our future Queen might publicly declare support for the right to life of each one of her future subjects.

Nigerian Presidential Election

2011-04-18T10:27:00.004+01:00

Given my concerns for Nigeria last year, I'm very pleased that the Nigerian Presidential Election - delayed from January - has gone much better than expected, and that Goodluck Jonathan will continue as the President. Politics is frequently disappointing, but on this occasion I think the best possible outcome has actually come to pass.

AV Referendum 5th May: Vote NO to AV

2011-04-16T13:59:00.008+01:00

I am as concerned as any other genuine Conservative that we are in danger of FPTP being ditched for AV on 5th May (and probably on a diabolically low turnout). Much has been written about the referendum recently and I will not re-iterate those arguments in a lengthy blog-post here - but rather I will simply go right to what I see as the heart of the matter. For at least ten years traditional British politics has been dead. [Whether it might ever be resurrected is another matter I shan't consider here.] There is essentially very little to distinguish between the major political parties; old notions of Right and Left count for little. Regardless of party political brand, all that really matters in 2011 Britain is whether a politician (or candidate) stands on the sand of secular-humanist 'values' or the Rock of traditional Morals. For me, the fundamental issue in regard of the FPTP versus AV debate is to settle the question of which system is likely to best serve those of us seeking to defend and advance legislation and political decision-making based on and/or favourable to traditional British morality. And for me, the answer to the question is clearcut: The retention of the First Past The Post system is in the best interests of strong government, strong opposition and an effective democratic process for the benefit of our whole society. It frankly disgusts me that this referendum is even taking place at all. How pathetic that senior Conservative Party figures allowed this to happen in the first place. We have an unneccesary referendum on the voting system - which at best will be an expensive waste of time (if it maintains the FPTP status quo), and at worst will saddle us with a stupid voting system and thus a weaker democracy (so nothing good can come of this AV referendum either way) - and yet we have no referendum on something we really ought to, namely British withdrawal from the EU. The Christian Institute has produced an excellent briefing paper on the AV referendum. Because of its charitable status the Christian Institute has to remain neutral and cannot officially support either camp; on my reading of their paper I think the Christian Institute's underlying message is 'For Christ's sake support FPTP; if AV comes in it will only make it even easier for secular-humanists to carry on destroying the country.' Vote NO to AV on 5th May

Choe Tae-Bok's UK visit

2011-04-02T20:46:00.005+01:00

North Korea's political leader Choe Tae-Bok was in London this week. Choe Tae-Bok met with Lord Alton and other British political figures in Westminster. To the best of my knowledge there was no US presence. The USA and China are both concerned about the stability of (Nuclear Weapon State) North Korea and the possibility of war this year. North Korea currently only has enough food to feed its population for about three months; the country is facing the prospect of mass starvation and this could easily precipitate regional conflict. I understand that Lord Alton could prove to be the key man in arranging access for British Christian agencies willing to provide essential food and medicines to the North Korean people. During his visit Choe Tae-bok held several meetings and also attended the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior in Westminster Abbey, at which time the Dean of Westminster led prayer for both North Korea and South Korea. Choe Tae-bok was also presented with a Byron first edition which must've come as a pleasing surprise for this admirer of the poet. Let's hope that starvation can be averted in North Korea, and pray for peace in the region.

Hard Love for an Enemy

2011-04-02T19:52:00.003+01:00

Well, it's a funny old business sometimes, being a Christian in public in 2011 Britain, particularly since I do political activism (which is a worldly activity) rather than evangelism (or some other obviously and purely Christian activity). I understand the nature of my calling as a political activist in the present season of my life - and in the light of the current condition of my nation. Mine is a hard task and a difficult balancing act. I have to speak the truth - in love. I have to be hard on the outside and take tough decisions and yet I need always to be motivated out of a tender heart on the inside - a heart of love for all people, enemies included. Some people misunderstand my motives in the way that I approach writing about certain subjects (e.g. homopervuality), but I think they are in the minority; I think that most people understand that I am not motivated by hatred for people, though I necessarily have to condemn the prevalent social evils of our times. Of course my enemies will always assign wrong motives to me, but as enemies they will inevitably do that. Love is my motive. I believe that a person's face should convey the right expression for the circumstances; it's the reason I have a sombre and serious photo at the top of this blog. The UK is in a state of crisis and this is not a time for frivolity or for making light of the situation. A hard face, hard methods and hard words do not necessarily mean a hard heart though. As a public political activist I have enemies - it goes with the territory. For the last couple of weeks an anonymous enemy going by the ridiculous pseudonym of 'Lionheart' has been pursuing a defamation campaign against me on Stewart Cowan's Real Street website. It's not the first time I've encountered such an attack via the internet (and it probably won't be the last). You name it, 'Lionheart' has made it up about me. I've had to respond harshly to 'Lionheart' - just as one would if ambushed by a knife-wielding maniac in the street - but my underlying attitude towards this sad, depraved and misguided person is an attitude of love. Agape love is the foundation of everything I do in political activism, though I fully appreciate that the cut and thrust of (political) battle is not a pretty sight - and to behold battle can be a confusing experience to the unfamiliar observer. My name is Richard and I can't escape who I am or pretend to be a character I am not. I suppose the moral and the motto is Love Hard.

Inevitable consequences

2011-04-02T19:27:00.004+01:00

As I predicted last year, the inevitable consequences of the recent public burning of the koran are rampaging muslims and murder. That's why I condemn the decision to burn the koran. Genuine and legitimate freedom of speech and protest certainly includes the freedom to burn any book, but to exercise such a freedom in the West whilst knowing full well that it will result in certain death and destruction for Christians and others in predominantly islamic countries is both foolish and evil.

Joe O'Neill for Swinton South

2011-03-27T19:47:00.002+01:00

Well, there are plenty of political issues over which I don't see eye to eye with Salford legend Joe O'Neill - he's just a touch to the left of me - but I hope Swinton South ward voters put Joe back on Salford City Council in May. Of the candidates available to them, Swinton South residents won't get a better local Councillor than Joe O'Neill.

Newsworthy?

2011-03-25T11:36:00.007Z

I sometimes wonder whether I live in a parallel universe to the mainstream British media. On Monday, three days hence, a national political leader from one of the most controversial countries on the planet will be in our Westminster Parliament, meeting with senior British politicians. This news has gone completely unreported so far (except right here on this blog). Now I know a thing or two about the manipulation of the British press. I could tell you stories of the puppet-masters poking national newspaper editors. Usually it's a case of not reporting something at all; blanket omission is the order of the day for the most important news of all that the public should not hear under any circumstances. One example is how the British Government has suppressed the full extent of the financial crisis which must be faced by this country over the next generation in an attempt to avoid runs on the banks, widespread panic and civil disorder. Proper investigative journalism seems to be dying a death within the mainstream British media. Yes, the real investigative journo/activists like myself are still around and are 'out there' - or rather out here on the web - but only if you can find us and know to look for us in the first place. Most British newspaper 'journalists' - both local and national - have been reduced to re-hashing the press releases fed to them; there are hardly any proper news reporters and investigative researchers left. Anybody can re-heat a press release. Anybody can make a quick phone call and ask for a supplementary quote, or do a quick google to get a couple of extra background facts on their subject. This is not the stuff of great journalism. At best, most paid journalists' idea of doing something 'investigative' these days is to send an FOI (freedom of information request) to a public body. Wooh, that's hardcore journalism eh! If I was to be controversial, I might say that broadly speaking the British press was much better twenty years ago than it is now - ironically when communication, information storage and distribution systems were rather more limited than they are now. You would think that in this information age of the internet - the great information super highway - the British public would be better informed about the news than ever. But it seems to me that in many respects the exact opposite has happened. At the same time as the art of (and resources for) serious investigative journalism is dying, the public's heads are now filled with more superficial trivia and pornographic titillation than ever. Most of what passes for 'news content' is not actually news at all, but rather it is entertainment. Nothing David Beckham has to say or do is of any consequence to your life whatsoever. But what civil servants get up to massively affects your life - and I'll bet you can't name even one Whitehall mandarin. Well, will I be in big trouble with Whitehall mandarins, or even the CIA, for reporting Choe Tae-bok's imminent visit to Westminster? I doubt it. They know that because nobody knows, nobody cares. But hey, it was newsworthy nonetheless.

Dishonourable behaviour for a copper

2011-03-23T14:52:00.004Z

Whilst I have every sympathy for Raoul Moat shooting victim PC David Rathband, I can't say I approve of Rathband suing his own police force (Northumbria) because his employer failed to warn him of danger - I think that this is dishonourable conduct for a police officer.

If a person freely volunteers to enter into a military or a police vocation then that person should accept the risks that go with their line of work. Rank-and-file soldiers and police officers may have many legitimate grievances - for example, soldiers do need better clothing and equipment - but none of these grievances override the basic fact that every cadet signs up to do what they know from the outset is a demanding and stressful job which carries with it all sorts of risks which are generally out of the ordinary experience of civilians.

As a public political activist, I operate on a very similar mindset to that of the military/police. I undertake dangerous investigative research. I take on serious and organised criminals and other terrible people and groups. And I've freely signed up to take the risks I take and to live with the consequences; I 'wear a uniform' - i.e. I'm public and identifiable as an activist. Of course, as a civilian I don't have the extra legal powers and arms that police officers are granted on account of their special status, but it nevertheless holds true that I voluntarily take the risks I do.

Life is about taking risks. No risk, no life. Risk is a normal part of human experience - as are the consequences, sometimes good, sometimes not. For a man who freely put on the uniform, I find it dishonourable conduct for a police officer to sue his own force because he wasn't warned of a risk. If you put a uniform on, you know you're at risk the whole time - it's what you sign up to from the beginning of your career.

Regrets

2011-03-21T12:36:00.004Z

We all regret doing things from time to time. And it seemed like such a good idea didn't it? You know how the story goes: you start something and it then turns into a real drag. It gets to that point of 'I've started so I'll finish!' Come hell or high water. Well, that's my China essay, so it is. I will finish my China essay. I will. I will! Hand me a Hamlet please...

And it all started so innocently...

2011-03-19T16:20:00.003Z

Well, this Stewart Cowan Realstreet blog is proving to be the most interesting discussion thread I've been on for a long time.

Sometimes it is necessary to fire one's guns.

And it all started so innocently...

First Past The Post

2011-03-11T22:07:00.004Z

You may be wondering what my view is on the voting system referendum. Well, I support the retention of the current system of First Past The Post. Now you can sleep easy.

Vice Trade Ultimatum to GMP Chief Peter Fahy

2011-03-11T19:56:00.003Z

Earlier today a written ultimatum was presented to Greater Manchester Police Chief Constable Peter Fahy on behalf of various persons and parties in regard of Manchester brothelkeepers Adrian Paul Burch, Sandra Jane Hankin and Christopher Mark Hankin. Chief Constable Fahy has been given a deadline of next Monday to respond to the ultimatum.

A group of residents from Northenden in South Manchester has instructed me to publish the following statement on their behalf:

"The residents of Northenden have been waiting for Greater Manchester Police to shut down the Sandy's Superstars brothel on Palatine Road for eight years. We can wait no longer. We require Chief Constable Peter Fahy to enforce the Sexual Offences Act 2003 against Adrian Paul Burch, Sandra Jane Hankin and Christopher Mark Hankin."

"We demand action now. If no response to the ultimatum is received by the stipulated time, or if an unsatisfactory response is received, we the residents of Northenden will proceed to instruct law enforcement agents not employed by Greater Manchester Police to deal with Adrian Paul Burch, Sandra Jane Hankin and Christopher Mark Hankin and the brothel which they keep in our community."

EXCLUSIVE: Choe Tae-bok to visit UK

2011-03-10T11:27:00.006Z

A reliable source informs me that Choe Tae-bok is to visit the UK later this year. I understand that the esteemed gentleman's itinerary will include meetings with several senior British Parliamentarians at Westminster. Choe Tae-bok is, by reputation, a cultured and refined gentleman of keen intellect; I trust that he will find his time in the UK to be productive, informative and pleasurable. On behalf of the British political blogosphere I welcome the esteemed gentleman to the UK.

Has Rob Bell lost the plot?

2011-03-09T15:18:00.006Z

I'm a Christian in public, and what I'm mainly about in public is social policy, politics and economics. Although I'm a Christian in public, I am not and never have been an 'Evangelist with a capital E' (or a preacher/teacher with a capital P/T).

I'm certainly not a 'Christian to please other Christians' in public; I'm a Christian in the world with a 'Christian calling' directed primarily towards Nation; the Gospel cannot be divided into a 'social gospel' and a 'personal gospel' - the Gospel is an indivisible whole - however, to frame my public work in gospel terms, my emphasis in being politically active is (inevitably) more often an expression of gospel for broad society than gospel for personal salvation and holiness.

Some Christians struggle to understand why I operate the way I do, and struggle to reconcile some of my methodology with their understanding of how a Christian ought to conduct their business; whilst I don't justify everything I've ever said or done in public - I have made mistakes (I have sinned), as we all do - my defence is that Christians who don't 'get me' are either not genuine Christians or else they are 'comfort-zone Christians' not living in the real world of what Christians need to be facing up to and actively taking on in public in this country in this generation.

I know that some Christians struggle with my occasional use of satire. I know that some Christians struggle with my lexicon of Truth-in-Love-Terms such as 'Homopervual' or 'Homosexual-pervert'. I don't entertain the soft use of language when such softening of words is a means to deceive and call evil as good. For example, in a society in which most politicians and the media are trying to normalise the evil of homosexual-perversion, I won't tolerate this evil and I won't go along with referring to the practitioners of homosexual-perversion with a soft term like 'gays' when the profession of the truth is vital for the good of individuals and society - so I don't say 'gays' I say 'homopervuals' or 'homosexual-perverts'. Similarly a pornographic performer is not an 'actress', she is a 'prostitute'. A woman photographed on Page 3 is not a 'model', she is a 'prostitute'. Any reader familiar with my work will know how sharp I am on the use of lexical engineering by the secular-humanist Evil Team out to destroy British society and the marriage-based family, and how I consistently highlight propaganda terms such as 'Sex Education' (which is arguably the single most effective contemporary social propaganda term coined in the 20th century - it was a stroke of genius to put the word 'education' with 'sex' in order to legitimise and promote pornography, grooming and child abuse in the classroom).

But I digress, at length, from the purpose of this blog-post - my apology to you, dear reader. My point thus far is simply that though I'm publicly known as a Christian, what I'm in public to do is 99% political in nature... so this blog-post is a rare purely Christian public comment...

Here is a review of Rob Bell's new book.

I haven't read Rob Bell's new book myself, I have only read the linked review, but if indeed the review is an accurate and fair comment - and I am minded to suspect that it is - then I have to say that I am greatly saddened that Rob Bell has gone off down the wrong track into heretical teachings in the theological area of 'universalism'.

I very much liked US-American Rob Bell's ministry when he first emerged on the British Christian radar about six years ago. His short videos were superb - powerful and inspired teaching aids which were great resources for teenagers in particular, and for persons younger in the faith.

Whilst I never cared much for what I saw as Bell's overly 'conversational style' of presenting his message (either on video or in written material) - and I particularly found his present-tense only story-telling style in recounting historical events to be profoundly irritating - I accepted that here was a guy operating in American-English and who was succeeding in presenting gospel truth to a dumbed-down generation of kids brought up in today's garbage culture of TV and internet media. Bell was able to connect with teenagers - he was trendy yet truthful.

I cannot stress enough how - my English language 'pedantry' aside - I was delighted by Rob Bell's videos.

Rob Bell's early videos are excellent.

Imagine my horror then to read the above review of Rob Bell's latest book. If indeed Bell has strayed far away from biblical orthodoxy and off into his own theological fantasy world then that's absolutely tragic for him personally.

My grave concern is that Rob Bell is a popular author for teenage and '18-30' Christians today and I do not wish to see large numbers of people deceived and led astray into serious and grievous error on account of reading dodgy material.

I've no doubt that Rob Bell is sincere in what he writes, and I don't believe for one moment that he would deliberately set out to deceive others, but if indeed he has himself been deceived I would hate to see his ministry - which started off so well - becoming a vehicle for deceiving other people, and especially since his appeal is to a younger audience.

I'm minded to think of John Hagee when he brought out his book 'In Defense of Israel' a few years back.

I'm a Christian Zionist. I recognise and take seriously the Jewish roots of my Christian faith in the Jewish Messiah Yeshua (Jesus Christ), and I recognise the outstanding biblical prophecies relating to the Jewish people and the Jewish homeland, to Jerusalem and Zion and I eagerly anticipate their complete fulfillment. I am a Christian friend of Israel; that doesn't mean I approve of everything the Government of the Israeli State does but it does mean I have a passion for seeing the Jews maintained and blessed and prospering in their God-given homeland (not to mention getting to know their Messiah).

US-American John Hagee's ministry started off really well, back in the 1980s. Few people have done more to honour the Jews and to help the Jews in their homeland than John Hagee used to do.

Hagee's early ministry was amazing. But, over time - and it was particularly consolidated by the time of his book 'In Defense of Israel' - Hagee gradually wandered off into serious extra-biblical error and rabbinic myths.

I think the reason that John Hagee in particular comes to mind in considering the review of Rob Bell's latest book - apart from the obvious parallel of starting well and then wandering away later from the straight and narrow - is that I know Rob Bell is noted for a keen interest in the original Hebrew language of the Old Testament and also for studying ancient Jewish culture.

I wonder whether, somewhere in immersing himself in Jewish rabbinic traditions, Rob Bell dropped his guard and gave mental assent to concepts which owe more to the kabalistic and the mythological than to scripture - indeed concepts which are simply not consistent with a sound interpretation of the Holy Bible?

Whatever has happened with Bell, if indeed he has lost the plot as the reviewer asserts, I am greatly saddened to hear it.

Northenden Residents Group against Sandy's Superstars Brothel

2011-03-08T15:52:00.008Z

Last week I was over in Northenden in South Manchester to meet for the first time with a (secret) local residents' group which seeks the closure of the Sandy's Superstars brothel on Palatine Road; subsequent to that meeting I am newly appointed as an advisor to the group. The Sandy's Superstars gang is the biggest brothel gang in Greater Manchester and the gang members are classified as serious and organised criminals. In addition to the local residents' group I now advise, there is another group of people actively seeking the closure of the Sandy's Superstars brothel; this other group has been going since last summer and because the Sandy's Superstars gangsters think I am a member of that group they have been harassing me personally for several months; I have had numerous sinister emails from Sandy's Superstars criminals, gangsters trying to hunt me down in person and even a death threat from a man claiming to be the 'head of security' for Sandy's. The people behind the ongoing internet defamation campaign against me are also from Sandy's Superstars. Gangster trouble is unpleasant but it's all 'water off a duck's back' to me as a seasoned political activist. I will be advising the residents' group on the best methods to achieve their objective within the law and with the assistance of Greater Manchester Police.