Rowan Williams, ex Archbishop, recently walked along his local high street. As he went he cast lavish quantities of £10 notes down upon the ground amongst the good people of the city.
He was astonished to see them throng about him in a frenzy picking up his largesse as fast as they could.
The good Rowan concluded that this was an obvious sign that the people of this town were living in desperate poverty…why else would they reduce themselves, humble themselves, by picking up money in the streets?
In the same way opening a food bank doling out free food is going to attract a lot of opportunists…why go to Tescos and pay hard cash when you can get it free from the mugs at the food bank?
Many naturally do need the service but I would confidently predict a large number do not.
That doesn’t stop the BBC using the rise of the Food Bank as a sign of economic and social collapse, government failure and unfairness.
In the broadcast mentioned below there was a particularly one sided view, from the BBC, of food banks, who uses them and the reasons they are needed.
As usual no context as to the dire economic situation the country is in….it is merely an attack on government policy combined with a demand for more money. The questions are all rather pointed….‘What does RW think of the government’s policy of cutting back on welfare?’
This morning on R4’s ‘Sunday (6 mins in) we are informed that the Hairy One is now patron of the Cambridge Food Bank…serving the poverty stricken and those living in deprivation in the ghettoes of Cambridge.
We are told that the ever growing (‘an explosion of’ according to the BBC) number of food banks are necessary due to unemployment and welfare cuts…I didn’t need to tell you that though.
Demand is growing steadily..it’s a recent thing…a feature of the times (since 2010?).
The BBC tells us that the fact that a former Archbishop is back on the ‘frontline’ tells us how serious things are…what with austerity and worsening poverty.
It’s not just Government welfare cuts though…the problem is also the media (Rowan means the Daily Mail of course) equating someone on welfare with scroungers…..Well, I could name and shame (probably not shame) loads in my own neighbourhood living quite comfortably on the bludge with no intention of changing their ‘lifestyle’.
The answer…more money. Go to the top of the class for guessing that one….‘which doesn’t square with government welfare cuts somehow.’
The BBC produces an ever growing, an explosion?, of programmes examining ‘poverty’ and welfare cuts or cuts to the NHS or to education…but there is absolutely no recognition that ‘there is no money left’.
I guess when you have a man like Rowan Williams, who believes you can feed 5000 people with just five loaves and two fish you can can see what guides this thinking…..no money? Not a problem…God will provide, and if not there’s Plan B, a Labour government will.
This morning on the BBC we also had one on mid-wives and their protests….or demands…guess what..more money…..no connection between Labour’s mass immigration, a leap in births and the need for more mid-wives? Those 13000 immigrants Labour let in were pretty productive…they’ve blossomed into millions….adding to the diversity and economic benefits to society of course.
It is all reported as if there is a pot of gold somewhere from which an endless supply of wealth could be brought forth if only we had a Labour government.
There’s the real world, then there’s the world as reported by the BBC.
Jam today, jam tomorrow. Hurrah for Labour’s jam factory!
Given the complaints we heard about the new BBC staff canteens , sorry restaurants , it is probably starving BBC employees using them. Of course they will only go for stuff from Waitrose or M&S ,leaving plenty of the other stuff for the ordinary people.
Oh yes…forgot to mention the BBC’s own economic plight….management tells the workers that if they don’t make cuts now they will only have to make more cuts later.
Didn’t realise there were so many ‘nasty party’ members in the BBC top management.
Do any of you remember the BBC episode of Casualty where two men were trapped in a small illegal coal working. Charley or one of the cast blames Mrs Thatcher for closing down the coalmines. Nothing changes with this lot.
Casualty was one of the worst offenders for left wing bias. I remember one episode where a load of drunken toffs in dinner dress were doing the conga outdoors preventing ambulances reaching the injured. The message was so obvious it was sickening.
They never show all the nurses stood round the nursing station talking about their boyfriends while patients soil themselves, or die of thirst. Despite being the true realism the NHS can’t be criticised.
If they did it would be the nasty Tory nurse not the caring lefty nurse wot dun it.
It would certainly be the ethnic British nurse, and not the foreign nurse who the nasty racist ethnic British nurse had earlier criticised for not speaking English properly (although really it was just ‘racism’).
However I do remember some years ago another nurse series Angels (four nurses one was Asian, and one had a funny foreign name from her divorced husband), and there was an episode where a useless Spanish nurse from an agency couldnt speak English. The new look mega PC BBC would never broadcast something like that now.
Nah, can’t be? Surely not, it MUST have been one of those mines closed by Fatcher, but reopened between 1997 and 2010 by our Glorious New Labour government.
What’s that how many did they reopen?
Oh I see………..oops.
I`m told that the BBC aren`t leaving their premises in London just yet, despite all their hoohaa and bluster about that historic event…why it seems like only yesterday eh?
Until the limpits can be extracted from the building then, why don`t we just open it up as a heavily subsidised canteen for Londons vulnerable and marginalised?…give `em all a BBC freebie lanyard, attach a few cameras and mics if they want an excuse to film the poor and hurting…and let them eat the BBCs scoff seeing as they`re supposed to be in Salford by now.
F***in squatters at the BBC probably haven`t managed to melt down the “person holes” or removed the last curtain gliders in Saviles Shebeen yet.
Let the poor in, Beeb….what better way to show you care about the victims of Toricutz
I`d recommend the Ragout Omar, there methsbreff!
P.S My poor and vulnerable wheezing Aunt Itoricutz got her asthma back and a wheezy chest infection( as well as a bit of rust on her disability scootah!) by having to listen to bloody Madness out in the rain, when the BBC were pissing off to somewhere nicer afew weeks back.
Now today, I find they`re not even going yet!
Any chance of us all taking out a class action for exemplary damages against the BBC for their breach of promise, as well as health and Safety violations( no outdoor heaters, no ashtrays etc, etc)
Can I sue-anyone else find they`re a bit peeky now?
Oh…and I fell over a darkened kerb stone while crawling along later that night…can I sue them for that too?
Rowan Williams when asked to describe himself answered first & foremost a bearded leftie so the arch primate of all England doesn’t feel his primary leaning is as a Christian? Not surprising then that we take his wittering’s with a pinch of salt
http://www.realclearreligion.org/2012/03/21/good_riddance_rowan_williams_246839.html
Is this the Rowan Williams who until recently earned c£70000 a year plus a grace and favour palace, chauffeured car etc
And was recently made a Lord
and is the Master of Magdalene College Cambridge (includes grace and favour quarters)
and represented one of the largest landowners in the UK
and is now receiving a wedge as part of a final salary pension scheme?
Like he really understands don’t he?
Strange how the BBC leaps to report every last crumb of anti-government criticism from the C of E. They seem curiously unwilling to publicise Christian views about gay marriage and abortion….
Yup, as just tweeted…
Matt @isoglyph 19m
Funny how the BBC don’t care what the C of E says until it criticises the coalition – then it’s all over the news.
GCooper,
“They seem curiously unwilling to publicise Christian views about gay marriage…”
“…the archbishop had said that the Church of England must show it can manage discord “gracefully” over issues such as women bishops and gay marriage.”
31st March
http://bbc.in/ZUopqj
“And Lord Carey spoke of being ‘very suspicious’ that behind plans for gay marriage ‘there lurks an aggressive secularist and relativist approach towards an institution that has glued society’.”
30th March
http://bbc.in/ZUndTZ
“Last month, the archbishop said he stood by the Church of England’s opposition to the introduction of gay marriage.”
21st March
http://bbc.in/14yY9pH
FAIL!
the man said “Christian”
not church of england,which virtually completely apostacised themselves decades ago
yes indeed….Fail dezdemona
That’s your counterargument? That the Church of England isn’t Christian?
Wow.
Don’t you ever get tired of the daily humiliation Dezzy?
In what way has he been humiliated here?
So what has seriously changed since Labour left power to warrant the rise of the ‘food bank’? More unemployment? – hardly changed. Cuts in benefits? – not yet kicked in.
If you suspect an orchestrated campaign here, I think you might just be right. The Left want to keep indigenous Brits out of work on benefits so they can justify continuing large scale immigration – ‘to take the jobs the Brits don’t want’.
And if free food is on offer, there’s a whole chunk of the freeloading population who will take it regardless of their economic circumstances. This is entitlement Britain, where £13 billion of PPI claims have been made, where suing for damages on ‘no win no fee’ is a way of life, and where if a cash machine starts giving out free cash a queue a mile long forms before you can blink.
And I thought the Archbish’s job was to provide the nation with a bit of moral compass. Fat chance.
Well one thing which has changed is the relentless taxation of gas & electric which has become the new petrol to politicians. So much so that by 2020 more new ‘levies’ will increase the average utility bill by a staggering £300 pa and that doesn’t include any price rises!
Then there’s the increase on VAT up to 20% a regressive tax if ever there was.
Governments need to learn that they cannot go on taxing lifes essentials and hoping that the public won’t notice their stealth taxes.
On top of that there’s an assumption that the people using these foodbanks are the ‘workshy’ when evidence suggests that they are in fact those on low wages in receipt of tax credits. We hear cries from the stupid ignorant left that this is because employers are not paying a living wage, it is no such thing!
20% income tax for a salary of £35,000 is plainly ridiculous for the services people want, and yet successive governments of all shades are incapable of raising the income tax rates so they instead use stealth taxes which hurt the poor.
An entire website dedicated to the mindless hate and apathetic grumblings of (I’m guessing) middle age, middle income, balding, slightly overweight, Sky News watching/Daily Mail reading, mother loving, secretly perverted, impotent types. I’m far too young, handsome, poor, openly perverted and enlightened to fit in in these parts of the internets…
Troll alert!!!!!!
Bright side… s/he’s guessing, and yet still manages a pretty extensive, diverse set of precise, unsubstantiated yet mostly pants predictions.
Looks like an ex-ECU staffer gunning for the vacant Black role, or Ms. Flanders’ eternity leave cover for the school hols.
Guest who, which irresponsible care worker gave you a dictionary, I’m not guessing, I’ve hacked your webcam and the only thing I’m gunning for is your youngest daughter…
Andy, you don’t need to tell us every time your mam walks in the room..
Boring.
“I’m far too young, handsome, poor, openly perverted and enlightened to fit in in these parts of the internets”
“Poor”? I thought there was a minimum income threshold for narcissistic hair-gelled little queens before they were allowed to mingle with the other conceited pretty boys in the most vibrantly-regenerated inner city districts that host nice-earner pink-pound-Pride orgies.
Simon, don’ be bitter because they stopped sending you the invites, its a minimum cum threshold you impotent diabetic fayboy (failed gayboy)…
Chetep, you can’t debate and are here only to hurl insults. It doesn’t make you look good. This is trolling. You are also a coward for doing it under a fake name and fake email.
Meet me tomorrow, by the grassy knoll, opposite the book depository around 9:11pm…
“An entire website dedicated to the mindless hate”
cue (familiar sounding) spite-filled rant
It sounds familiar because its the echoes of every potential friend you could have had, you lonely paederast…
You`ll be James Purnell-Hall and I claim my fat salary.
Keep dropping by, and let`s see if you will yer be enlightened.
You seem a bit of a Simon Cowell attention seeking jobbie to me.
Are you doing this performance to try and commune with a dead step-aunt or such who “u luvved 2 bitz?”
Just asking!
You seem like a psychologists wet dream pal…
You don’t love your mother? Whatever did she do to you and isn’t whatever it was the source of your problems now?
More like ‘Father’ issues (it usually is with leftists) Saw some thing nasty in the wood shed maybe
My mother neglected me physically, unlike yours who had enough loving for the both of us…
….unable to debate, and apparently unaware of all the other websites out there which actually are dedicated to hate, and brave enough to post anonymously….
This is a BRITISH site, not for foreign little puss-holes from backwards third-world dictatorships…
“This is a BRITISH site, not for foreign little puss-holes from backwards third-world dictatorships… ”
So you’re a racist now too…
The BBC has invaded and is targeting my country, cowardly chetep. At your expense, of course.
So you are ageist, sexist, anti-bald (they can’t help it!), lookist, anti-sexually disabled, judgmental, etc. And all that is “enlightened” …
Andrew
just simpler to write “twat”
I agree, Andrew is a twat…
Very perceptive baldy…
Un-elected Bishops and church leaders’ do not represent Christians – although the BBC likes to suggest they do. I am far from being alone among practicing Anglicans in fully supporting the welfare reforms and gay marriage (see the Inclusive Church). The only Christian leader reported on the BBC news this Easter who focused on Christianity rather than socialism was the Archbishop of York – seen comforting the poor parents of patients at the closed Children’s Heart Unit in Leeds.
I am curious about something Peter regarding your comment. You state quite clearly that you fully support gay marriage. I am wondering what it is about it that you think is beneficial to our society.
So you are clear about where I am coming from, I am NOT referring to the personal choices of people to engage in sex with either gender, nor to cohabitate, even for many years. What I don’t see is why should society bestow any regard to that union.
In my opinion marriage should be the foundation of our society. Not the way it is regarded today, but the way it was honoured in the past, as a solid commitment to provide a firm, stable, and loving environment for the offspring of that marriage. That’s what benefits society, and this is what I see that society should ‘honour’.
So why are you in support of it?
I don’t think the efforts to legalise gay marriage are about being beneficial to society, rather they are about granting gay people the same right to marry as heterosexual couples.
In any case, I fail to see how gay marriage could harm society. What are your reasons for opposing it?
Because a gay couple marriage doesn’t bring any benefit to society.
Unlike heterosexual marriages, (if done properly) which human beings need to provide a good foundation for our society.
I can’t see why society should provide any honorary recognition of a gay couple wanting to make a commitment to each other. I don;t have any problem with them doing it, but I wouldn’t give it the same status, as it has far less intrinsic value.
Why does it have less intrinsic value? Gay couples can have children, and raise them in the same loving, stable environment as a heterosexual marriage.
As I see it, it is currently an injustice that gay couples cannot marry. Legalising gay marriage would remove this injustice, and do no harm whatsoever to society. In fact, I would say that gay marriage would be beneficial to society, as it would give more relationships the legal status of being married. Even if you disagree with that, the fact that something may not be a benefit to society is not a reason to oppose it if it does no harm.
I am fortunate enough to have lived through many changes occurring within our society, have lived in many different cultures and societies, and had the opportunity to reflect on probable causes which led to those changes.
If the changes would have created a better society, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. We have always had problems to solve to make our society better than it was before. So that human beings could easier reach an increased potential on many levels.
I can tell you that I wouldn’t want to be a 20 year old today. I am quite happy to be my age and know the worlds I have. I say that because the things that I’ve seen that once stimulated and enhanced ones being in general terms have been greatly reduced. That which has replaced it is ‘good in theory’ but hasn’t been used in that way.
Like television for example, which COULD be a great way to educate and inspire, but the reality is it’s mostly used to dumb down and corrupt our society.
Money is more important than quality of life, and this is the theme I don’t agree with.
When I think of marriage in its ideal, I see it as
1. A man and a woman, each with the loving experience gained from their parents to know the value of commitment.
2. Wise enough to have thought through and understand what love really is, instead of confusing it with a lot of other feelings.
3. Mature enough to know when they are ready to give such a commitment.
4. Using all of the above to judge whether their prospective partner will enable them both to form a solid whole – something bigger than the sum of its parts.
This is where the benefit to all human beings begins in so many ways.
There is no natural way for a gay couple to have children.
A child needs a loving male and female role model to be best rounded and grounded.
There are areas that a heterosexual relationship can inspire, that are so deep to our consciousness of LIFE and life force, that nothing else can be equal.
So long as society can believe that elevating a gay relationship to be equal to that of a straight one, shows how much we have ‘lost the plot’.
Well I’m 20 and I’m quite happy to be as old as I am.
So what if there’s no ‘natural’ way for gay couples to have children. It’s still possible. Would you object to straight couples adopting or using IVF?
I agree (apart from the man and woman part) with your view of marriage, which too many people rush into these days. I just don’t see what justification there is for denying it to gay people.
You make a good point about a child needing a male and female role model. However, there are always going to be role models of both genders around a child (relatives, friends etc.) regardless of whether it is brought up by a straight or gay couple. I would think that most gay couples would actively seek to involve role models of the other gender in their children’s lives in order for them to be rounded and grounded.
I don’t think that putting straight and gay relationships on the same footing is a sign of having ‘lost the plot’. I would say that relationships are about love, and gay people love each other in exactly the same way as straight people do, so to give both equal value is, for me, a sign of enlightenment. I suspect we will have to agree to disagree.
I can understand that a lot of people justify gay marriage as a sign of enlightenment. The reason for that is not necessarily anything that they would have come to independently, but more the way it has been put to them – a fait accomplit. One of the main reasons for spending so much time trying to raise consciousness about BBC bias is precisely because this is their power. Instead of presenting a subject in a true impartial and balanced way, inspiring independent thought, it subtly, but very definitely, convinces the audience that ‘this is the way to think ‘.
Let me ask you this – would you rather be raised by your own loving natural mother and father, committed to each others happiness as well as that of you and your brother and sisters? Being part of this natural extended family and starting life with this as your experience.
Or would you feel you would be equally stimulated and enhanced being raised by those of same sex only acting the part for their own gratification?
I hope you’ll really think about this before answering.
Why do you assume that it is only same-sex couples who raise children for their own gratification? And that same-sex couples become parents only for their own gratification? They want to become parents for exactly the same reasons as straight people want to become parents and, thanks to modern science, they can.
Gay parents would be just as committed to each other’s happiness and the happiness of their children as straight parents are. I would want to be (and have been) raised by two people who love each other and who are in a committed, stable relationship, regardless of whether they are gay or straight. Being stimulated and enhanced by your parents has more to do with their personalities and qualities as parents than their gender – you could have two feckless lesbian mothers, just like you can have a feckless mother and father. Even if you believe gay parents to be worse than straight parents, is that a reason to deny them the chance to become parents?
What I wrote was ACTING THE PART for their own gratification. This is not an assumption but a fact.
You seem not to grant any virtue about the bond that is created between a woman who carries a child inside her, feeling it grow day by day, together with the father sharing her experience. This is dismissed to make your view of equality work.
You avoided my direct question at the end of my last comment as to which would you prefer, and rephrased it to say something else.
This was not the question. You are at liberty to think or believe whatever you want, I won’t challenge you with this again.
“Because a gay couple marriage doesn’t bring any benefit to society.
Unlike heterosexual marriages, (if done properly) which human beings need to provide a good foundation for our society.”
More opinion stated as fact, with nothing to back it up. Can’t you do any better than this?
Here you go again idiot starting with insults and aggression to compensate for your lack of comprehension, or strategy to try and dismiss reason and logic when it doesn’t go in your desired direction.
Get somebody to explain THE POINTS to you.
On the other thread, you wanted an example of you losing it when you think somebody else is being aggressive – even though all they’re doing is disagreeing with you.
And here you are. A prime candidate.
More opinion stated as fact, with nothing to back it up. Can’t you do any better than this?
Because YOU CHOOSE NOT to address the explanation for ALL the points I made, and then relate to me as responsible for your opinion, WHEN IT IS YOUR OWN FAILURE/STUPIDITY or call it what you will, you get your head slapped.
I’ve really had enough of your imbecilic manner displayed here repeating itself on nearly every comment you make. You’ve been shown to be wrong about your claims TIME AND TIME again. Either learn from it and GROW UP or piss off. Otherwise stop complaining about the reactions you bring on yourself.
Since your comprehension of English is so pathetic, here’s an easier way for you to understand:
Very mature.
Feel better for that, do we?
“the way it was honoured in the past”
Is that before or after it was used as a financial transaction between families?
Before or after those Biblical marriages which we quite clearly polygamous?
“a firm, stable, and loving environment for the offspring of that marriage.”
So if a straight but infertile couple wanted to marry, would you deny them, too?
Also, a recent study suggested that one in five same-sex couples were raising children as part of their family. Surely by your reasoning they shouldn’t be denied the honour and stability of marriage?
I think I’ve elaborated enough to have given you more to understand about my point of view, and from where is my perspective since you posted your comment.
Yes, I understand that you can’t defend your position from very reasonable questions put forward in a sensible manner. Thanks.
Teddy, this is a response to your last reply to me.
They are not ‘acting the part’. THEY ARE PARENTS. So what you said is not a fact. Legally they are the two fathers, or two mothers, of the child. You haven’t answered my questions as to why you think it is only for their own gratification, and why it is only gay parents who act for that selfish motive. Perhaps you can’t.
I do not dismiss the virtue of the synergy between mother and father, for it is indeed a beautiful thing. I just think that gay parenthood is no less beautiful, because it comes from the love of two people for each other and for their child. You disagree, and that’s fine.
I think you’ll find I did answer your question. You asked me an incredibly leading question about which I would prefer, hoping for one answer. That’s not fair debating, is it? I answered it by saying that I had no preference, which is a perfectly legitimate answer.
As you say, however, we are both at liberty to believe what you want, so perhaps we should leave it there.
Since there is no natural way for a gay couple to have children, and go through the natural dynamics and experiences in preparation for parenthood, is why I say they can only ACT the role.
The dynamics between male and female are also very powerful. Each have their own qualities and virtues, and ideally each will complement the other to form a complete WHOLE.
Sure a man can act like a woman, and a woman a man, but that doesn’t make them the real thing. I see the very need they have to think they need to, or not desiring to complete a union with their natural opposite gender, as a psychological problem.
Even with the best intent, a gay couple cannot give a child they are parenting the same dynamics that would come with the natural parents. I would also add that it is not optimum for a child to be only raised with a single natural parent, where that parent has done so selfishly, or because of poor judgement of prospective partner.
The difference is one of depth, and due to its nature, impossible scientifically for the time being to quantify. Doesn’t mean it’s not there. Understand I am talking about what’s best or ideal for the child, not the desires of adults who reject the natural way and still want the best of all worlds.
OK, I sense the fundamental point of our disagreement is this. Unless I have misinterpreted the end of your third and fifth paragraphs, you believe that being gay is not natural, that it is a ‘psychological problem’. I don’t see it that way, hence I disagree with the idea that gay parents act for their own gratification. Does being gay automatically mean that you should be excluded from becoming a parent, as you seem to imply with ‘want the best of both worlds’?
You also keep using the word ‘natural’. I would point out that at least one of the gay parents is the biological father or mother of the child, either by providing sperm or by carrying the child in the womb and giving birth to it. Even for the one who isn’t the biological mother or father, parenthood is more about how you raise the child after the birth than what happens before it (that’s how I see it anyway). I agree that the dynamics of a mother and father are special, but not so special as to be unattainable by gay parents, who can raise a child with all the care and love it needs, and, as I mentioned earlier, involve role models of the other gender. Again, I think we will have to agree to disagree here.
I agree that we see gay from a different viewpoint, and it may well be that we will have to agree to disagree 😉
My understanding is that gay couples can adopt children, and not necessarily have any biological connection to that child. It certainly would be preferable for there to be at least a biological connection from one of the parents than neither.
In conclusion, at least for now, I would only say if I was making a list of the pros and cons regarding gay couples raising children compared to natural parents, and grading the benefits to the children by each alternative, the natural parents would have the optimum and desired grade.
Since there is no natural way for a gay couple to have children, and go through the natural dynamics and experiences in preparation for parenthood, is why I say they can only ACT the role.
Are you saying that conception is an essential and mandatory part of parenting?
How would step-parents fit into this? Or a straight couple who adopt?
It seems to me that your ultra-strict version of marriage and parenting fails to reflect the reality of opposite-sex parenting as it stands now, so can hardly be used as the basis for dismissing same-sex parenting.
Not just the conception, but the 9 months pregnancy carrying and delivering the child, and the changes and bonds formed in that period.
It certainly would be preferable for there to be at least a biological connection from one of the parents than neither.
I would rate a loving straight relationship adopting a child intrinsically higher than that of gay for reasons I already explained.
I don’t regard my view as strict, as much as what makes the most sense to me in terms of having the best foundation for the individual growth of human beings.
It’s not religious based, but experience based.
My reasons for supporting gay marriage and agreeing with Chris are well put here:
http://inclusive-church.org.uk/inclusive-church-and-same-sex-marriage
But my point was that Christians hold widely differing views on this and on welfare reform. So it is wrong of the BBC to present the views of Carey or the 40 Bishops, or other church leaders as representing christian views. The Inclusive Church is proof that they don’t as is http://www.christian-conservatives.org.uk/ a Christian organization that supports the coalitions welfare reforms.
The same basic thinking times a billion describes the coalition’s spending policies.
The ironic thing is that by resisting cutting government spending the BBC is hurting everybody with their lips clamped firmly on the state teat.
Only cutting our unsustainable spending will keep the whole show on the road. There’s more on that in: “Debasing Britain” at::
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/