[Closed] Member of immoral organisation questions immoral PM's morals

(Member of immoral organisation) maybe so,but he`s right 😐

To be fair from what I've seen recently the Daily Mail has also been doing an excellent job of opposing Cameron's political and economic priorities.

He doesn't seem to have many friends these days. Except for the LibDems of course.

The best written article I saw after the budget was in the Mail on Sunday. It's written from a conservative perspective of course, but it hits countless nails on the head. And surprisingly it was written by the Mail on Sunday's leader writers.

It's well worth a read :

[url= http://www.****/debate/article-2123287/The-perils-Government-chums.html?ito=feeds-newsxml ]The perils of a Government of chums[/url]

Cheers Ernie - that was indeed an interesting read.

It appears when the church gets a bee in their bonnet they will react quite firmly. But then it is an election year for them (Sentamu going for the Canterbury job)

This is not a Catholic, but a CofE member and his wife in the foreground orbiting round him and watching for, well i dunno, witnesses? Shame she couldn't ID plain clothes watching. Not content with discussion, they resort to assaulting one of the LGBT peeps outside York Minster:

[img] [/img]

I have some video of this scene that confirms it's an assault by English law, but I cba blurring the victim out so it's not going on here.

I'm not entirely sure wtf the above has to do with anything...

-----------------

Catholic Church doesn't pay rates or corporation tax, does it?

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1086075684&type=RESOURCES

It also goes to great lengths to avoid priests being classed as employees in order to avoid vicarious liability for the torts of its priests (mostly sexual and physical abuse) and to avoid legal obligations around employment: http://religionlaw.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/catholic-bishops-and-vicarious.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/2871.html

#beams #motes

I'm not entirely sure wtf the above has to do with anything.

It's all to do with it.

"Do as I say, not as I do"?

There'll be a massive shift in jobs this year within the CofE church which is the voice in England. Op's story is a Catholic voice in Scotland. There are already a number of CofE 'voices' speaking up on poverty and the governments actions. Whilst I'm against religion having a grip on the people because it leads to bigotry, it has its use in reaching large demographics and may be a vital tool to fight the governments "we're all in it together" lies.

100,000 volunteering schemes in the UK by the CofE church. Percentage of volunteering amongst the population recently dropped from 49% to 41% (and treat these as schemes/volunteers before austerity) I'd be interested in seeing what effects if any if the church held back on its volunteering. Would it crack?

I have some video of this scene that confirms it's an assault by English law

It's good that you've added that, because the picture you've posted far from confirms your allegation.......both the upwards facing palms of the assailant, and the apparent relaxed demeanor of the victim, is far from convincing, other than providing evidence that the alleged assailant is remonstrating with his intended victim. Who presumably targeted York Minster precisely to due to its provocative appeal and expected reaction. Perhaps a still of the moment of contact and immediately after would have been more appropriate ?

Catholic Church doesn't pay rates or corporation tax, does it?

You'll find that the congregations in Catholic churches do indeed pay rates and corporation tax, and that Cardinal O'Brien was speaking on their behalf.

Perhaps a still of the moment of contact and immediately after would have been more appropriate ?

Stills are subjective. Open to interpretation.

The guy was pointing with both index fingers in her face, chasing her around, angrily spinning and stomping off a few paces and coming straight back at her, yelling red faced into hers from inches away at times. There were many witnesses. I was initially engaging a complete nutter carrying the largest bible I've seen because he seemed to be harassing young people with his contacts and then saw this going on.

English law on assault specifies "contact" now does it?

I was too far away to intervene physically so directed plain clothes over to protect anybody else from the guy, as one lad put an arm round her shoulders and led her off (I think she was crying) and another lad went up to engage the guy in conversation to divert him. (The man continued ranting to the lad diverting even with plain clothes stood right next to him with an ear visibly cocked at least trying to warn the guy he was out of order)

You weren't there, [b]we[/b] were. This isn't solely my allegation. I could probably get at least a dozen witnesses for this if this guy is your family member and you want to push this to the courts and see him with a criminal record (and possibly the wife for assisting the assault with her actions providing a lookout) None of us were willing to go so far to have the guy prosecuted for what he did on the day. We understand it is emotional stuff for them.

A small minority of every demographic is prone to breaking the law. I'm just saying that these guys are not to be put on a pedestal, their congregation not to be relied on to take a modern view when deciding on actions.

You weren't there

Obviously. But I don't know why you think simply posting a very random inconclusive pic which explains very little is sufficient.

.

I could probably get at least a dozen witnesses for this if this guy is your family member and you want to push this to the courts and see him with a criminal record (and possibly the wife for assisting the assault with her actions providing a lookout)

No, I don't recognise him and his wife. And since no member of my family is in the C of E, I feel confident that I'm not related to him. So I am perfectly happy for it to go to court. Thanks anyway.

It's all to do with it.

Wealthy professional Londoners, dwelling in the heart of a city criss-crossed with public transport (and with bicycle lanes for the fashionable), have little idea how dependent millions of British families are on their car

Read more: http://www.****/debate/article-2123287/The-perils-Government-chums.html#ixzz1tR066VB5

The Daily Mail's contempt for cyclists is laughable. So everyone that cycles to keep fit, save money, save time, (even save the planet) is doing it for 'fashion'. What ****ts, no wonder I don't read it.

The rest of the article is pretty pi$$ as well IMO but that bit was the worst.

I know people who live and/or work in the centre of London who don't have cars because they quite frankly don't need them. The Daily Mail's point is valid imo, and if that represents the "worst" bit of the article then that doesn't represent much criticism imo.

The rest of the article is pretty pi$$ as well IMO but that bit was the worst.

I shared Ernie's intrigue that even the gutter press of the tory mind don't seem to enamoured with shiny face and his cronies

AS Zokes said - I read an express the other night and the contempt for Cameron was astounding. At least in part as he was not right wing enough for them but even so - not just a wish he was more rightwing but outright contempt for him

Zokes, I'm wondering about the thread title and what you are implying? Are you saying that because he is head of an immoral organisation his opinion is invalid? Or have I misunderstood your point?

I read an express the other night and the contempt for Cameron was astounding

Well the leader writers of the Express and Mail aren't stupid. They realise that part of Thatcher's appeal was that she only married into extreme wealth - she probably met a few working class types in her father's grocery shop. I'm not sure where Cameron and Osborne might have had the opportunity to connect with those who eat pasties and kentucky takeaways. As a consequence Thatcher had probably a greater insight into how not to put her foot in it. Although she spectacularly misjudged and failed with the Poll Tax, and ended her own political career. Which kinda makes the point, ie, if you're that much out of touch then your political career comes to a rapid end.

Surely there is nothing new in the press attacking their own side? The Guardian was pretty critical of Blair and Brown. I'm not sure whether it is intellectual honesty, an annoyance that your own chosen party don't do precisely as you wish / expect or just or just short attention spans by the media who are only interested in the next thing.

A lot of the things in that article were pish i thought. Pastygate was a nothing, the fuel debarcle was a cock up but hardly serious, the charity tax write off was a good idea (The Guardian thought so at least) and the pensioner tax thing was also another loophole / anomaly that needed closing. All done fairly ineptly it is true but compared to the real issues (like how to get the economy going, see other threads!) it was just so much Westminster / media bubble and no more.

Surely there is nothing new in the press attacking their own side? The Guardian was pretty critical of Blair and Brown.

The Guardian urged its readers not to vote for Brown/Labour, which hardly suggests that they considered themselves to be on the same side. Obviously they now regret the advise which they gave their readers, but that's hardly surprising coming as it did from a muddle liberal bourgeois perspective which invariably fails to understand or correctly analyse conflicting class interests.

Certainly the Daily Mail's recent attacks on the Tories comes as a surprise to many people, they don't have a history of doing that. Sure you might expect them be critical over certain issues, but this goes far beyond that and attacks the integrity of the Tory leadership and questions their fitness to govern.

We are experiencing interesting times in which the future is unpredictable and old rules no longer seem certain to apply.

Zokes, I'm wondering about the thread title and what you are implying? Are you saying that because he is head of an immoral organisation his opinion is invalid?

Not at all. Though I do find it slightly amusing that he is preaching morals, just as it's amusing that the Mail and Express seem to be criticising his shiny-faceness.

Surely there is nothing new in the press attacking their own side? The Guardian was pretty critical of Blair and Brown

The Guardian is a left-leaning newspaper. There wasn't much left-leaning about NuLab after the first couple of years...

Certainly the Daily Mail's recent attacks on the Tories comes as a surprise to many people, they don't have a history of doing that. Sure you might expect them be critical over certain issues, but this goes far beyond that and attacks the integrity of the Tory leadership and questions their fitness to govern.

We are experiencing interesting times in which the future is unpredictable and old rules no longer seem certain to apply.

Indeed - the tone was a great surprise tome - basically calling Cameron unfit to govern.

The guardian is hardly left leaning - only in comparison the the right to far right spectrum of the most of the rest of the press. the guardian is pretty much as Ernie said

a muddle liberal bourgeois perspective

its a mark of how distorted our press is when the Guardian is seen as left leaning

"a muddle liberal bourgeois perspective"

although I would be a little kinder in my description

Yeah well I struggle to suppress my revolutionary fervour and rhetoric. I obviously wasn't having a good time when I posted that.

So the representative of a huge global organisation that pays virtually no Tax and has huge reserves and assets wants to tax rich organisations (except itself as having an imaginary friend exempts you from tax) while insisting that it's members pay them every week in cash (nothing dodgy about that eh)while trying to ignore UK/EU laws on equality (sexist/homophobic).

[b]Pot and Kettle to the forum please[/b]