April 10, 2011

The gay lobby continues to undermine the sacrosanct institution of marriage, according to a damning new report by a PR company.

Dichs&Lobley have made the report available to hungry journalists in the past week and are delighted with the coverage.

“We’re very pleased about the exposure we’re getting. We’ve been in the business for years and we know how to play the press. When we were offered a skip-full of cash to promote homophobia, covert racism and general intolerance towards minorities, we were delighted with the opportunity.”


Commenting on the difficulties they had conveying complex ideas to a readership with the mental age of a dead monkey, chief executive of Dichs&Lobley, Tristram Dichs added,

“It very difficult to distil lots of material down to sizes that the average gutter journalist can accommodate. Large passages are usually disappointing and put punters off. Size is important, and knowing when to release: timing is everything.”


Julian Gaggin, spokesgay for gay advocacy group Rings of Ire, says marriage has many benefits which shouldn’t be denied to gays and lesbians:

“For too long we’ve been denied the frisson of adultery. We have to make do with just old-fashioned promiscuity but marriage would open up a whole new world of excitement and moral degradation. Just think of the extra-marital affairs. Sex was starting to get dull for fags, and we’re tired of bareback sex with strangers. Even the monthly HIV test has lost its excitement. We want something new–we want marriage– and it’s a contravention of our rights to deny it.”

“We are also worried that the conservative press might tire of boring stories about cottaging and gay orgies. Gays are secretly worried that the tabs will move on to other outgroups. We’re terrified of the day we wake up and there’s not a single sensationalised story about dirty gays. If we don’t have the right to adultery then it will be Asians making middle England gag on its porridge.”


Felony Milps, of Decent Ordinary Christians Keeping Institutions Not Gay, opined that gays are trying to ruin a millenia-old tradition which has its roots in the inviolable wisdom of some old books.

“There is lots of evidence that gays make bad parents. Marriage must be between a man and a woman because it is the normative coupling in nature and the only one which can produce children into a safe, loving home environment which in turn produces unquestioning Judeo-Christian traditionalists thereby ensuring that normal values are ensured and enshrined in society as they ought to be according to the traditional traditions which have been the bedrock of civilisation and are unalterable and not subject to scrutiny nor any meddling by devious multicultural relativistic liberals who regularly resort to the sneaky tactics like independent thought, reasoning, logic and the wickedness of empirical evidence.”


Ed Todgebury, Conservative MP for Girthing Frockett and Minister for Fairness, has been leading a campaign in the Commons to put an end to homosexual behaviour with the exception of elite private schools.

“It’s alright in the boarding school dorm but when one reaches school-leaving age one must no longer tumesce when one espies the exquisite globularity of a pubescent boy’s bottom.”


The moral regression of Melanie Phillips

May 6, 2010

I have read the journalistic nonsense of Melanie Phillips for some years and it continues to surprise me how she actually gets away with it. She is a big fish in the conservative movement but in a riposte to Jonathan Freedland she coyly denied this:

Jonathan justifies his attack by claiming that I have massive influence. Would that it were so! I remain, alas, merely one journalist trying to tell the truth as I see it. Jonathan can breathe easily again.

Whatever the scale of her influence in 2007, and it was big, her influence is indeed massive in 2010: Lecturing widely, contributing to Fox News, a Daily Mail column, blogging at the Spectator, writing for the Jewish Chronicle, appearing on Question Time and BBC 4’s Moral Maze, promoting books–that’s massive. Liberal-minded people must watch with horror as her influence expands and the rhetoric intensifies. This week alone has seen her launch a new book as well as having a cover story in the Spectator.

Her big theme (aside from the Middle East, a subject for another day), abundantly reinforced throughout her writing, is that atheism, rationalism and the like are bad and Judeo-Christian voodoo is actually authentic reason. This is an attempt by one journalist to rewrite three millenia of philosophy. All the brilliant philosophers have been wasting their brains since Christianity because Phillips has figured it all out. Read the rest of this entry »

The Sunday Express: Families, filth and the BBC

March 28, 2010

Families, filth, BBC

Exemplary moral panic today in the Express.

Kids are watching post-watershed content on the internet websites of ‘most’ of the terrestrial channels, not just the BBC. But a tabloid must never miss an opportunity to malign the BBC, and what a delightful semantic conjunction for a tabloid’s front page: BBC=’FILTH’. The ideal triad of elements in any good moral panic are all present: The wondrous family, the sinister values that threaten it (filth), and the ones responsible for it (the beeb).

Dredging the sludge of a tabloid cover story like this will always reveal the hidden hand of some pressure group or other, and today’s hand eagerly manipulating the willing tabloid puppet is Mediawatch. You know, the one founded by Mary Whitehouse CBE, champion of decency.

Only wanton disingenuousness or dismal naiveté can explain why the moral outrage confabulator has been cranked up for a ‘story’ about kids watching grown-up terrestrial programming on the internet. At least all this content will be filtered by the censor board and not contain stuff like, um, violent pornography.

Are the bunny brains of the moral crusaders unable to comprehend the reality that most kids will have seen wildly explicit sex and violence on the internet? And have they not bothered to educate themselves that all these programmes (and so much more) are readily accessible on third-party websites for free?

Like so many newspapers the Express survives by dispensing with the costly business of journalism. Much cheaper to run as a kind of bullshit agglomerator, transmogrifying pressure group PR into a ready-made news agenda.

And we won’t mention the salaciousness of some of Richard Desmond’s other publications.

Andrew Sullivan on Pete Wehner and James Dobson and moral decline myth

January 30, 2010


Melanie Phillips on marriage, values, sex and bastards reloaded

January 26, 2010

Melanie Phillips reasserts her position on sex and marriage in The Daily Mail:

All the informal attitudes protecting marriage – taboos against sex outside marriage, illegitimacy, cohabitation – were similarly  struck down on the basis that nothing should interfere with the individual’s ‘right’ to do whatever he or she pleased.

The individual’s right to do what he or she pleases is the central tenet of what it means to be free. Phillips proposes a Judeo-Christian society in which freedom is conditional. She really does advocate here a society which would castigate people who don’t marry and especially those who practice the disgusting sin of unmarried sexual gratification:

This can’t be restored until marriage is properly supported by removing both incentives and approval for extramarital sexual relationships and by putting fault back into divorce.

This is the second time in two weeks that Phillips has hinted that the abolishment of the status of illegitimacy was lamentable, and that any sex outside of marriage is wrong. It is regrettable that one of the most intolerant, self-righteous and illogical commentators in the UK is drifting even further to the right.

Vince Cable and Chris Giles(FT) criticise tax breaks for marriage

January 10, 2010

Liberal Democrat Vince Cable and Financial Times economic editor Chris Giles expose the fallacy that is the Conservative proposal to award tax breaks for marriage. Essential reading:



Melanie Phillips on marriage, values, sex and bastards

January 10, 2010

Melanie Phillips is clearly rejuvenated after the winterval, and possibly drunk on the dregs of the brandy and port. She is a skilled rhetorician, able to swaddle a lot of intolerance in the cosy blankets of traditional families and her cluster-bomb answer to everything, Judeo-Christian values. Stab yourself with your pen, burn your laptop, your godless logic cannot survive Judeo-Christian values.

I am surprised, then, that a recent post in the Spectator seems to have slipped under the radar and not caused even a flicker of anger because her opinions here are unusually extreme even by her standards. She begins with the usual disparagement of Cameron’s Conservatives for not being conservative enough. That is de rigueur for an M.Phil. critique of the ‘Cameroons’. She then expounds the virtues of that most vital of institutions, marriage.

Finally her head rotates and she projectile vomits a black, viscid bile. She doesn’t of course but I find the following comments disturbing, retrograde and utterly prejudiced:

the cementing of that union [marriage] is achieved not just by law but through a complex web of custom, assumptions and attitudes which are promoted, enforced and policed at a social and cultural level.

‘Enforced’ and ‘policed’? Sounds a bit nanny state, does it not?

The reason marriage has been so catastrophically undermined is not just because married couples no longer enjoy financial rewards but – much more crucially — because unmarried people have been both awarded incentives and lost disincentives to produce children outside marriage. Incentives such as welfare benefits, both cash in hand and services such as flats for teenage mothers; removal of disincentives such as the abolition of the legal status of illegitimacy, the removal of fault-based divorce, the non-judgmental approach to elective lone parenthood with fatherhood now reduced in some cases to anonymised fluid in a test-tube — and perhaps most disastrous of all, social approval for cohabitation, that great contemporary engine of mass fatherlessness, with all levels of society, from officialdom downwards, now creating a level playing field between marriage and unmarried ‘relationships’ through the ubiquitous use of the word ‘partner’

What an unbelievable world view. Illegitimacy should not even be mentioned because it is horrendous and indefensible. Stigmatizing children and families because of unconventional domestic situations was plainly barbaric. What seems implicit in the text is that its abolition was somehow a bad outcome. Phillips’ disdain of cohabitation is another baseless prejudice: cohabitation is no more immoral than marriage and it is not normal to disapprove of it. Again the logic of her argument is invalid–most couples cohabit before they marry.

If marriage really is to be restored to its rightful place as a unique institution with unique status and privileges, then disapproval of unmarried sexual relationships and the production of fatherless children has to be restored

Condemning sex before marriage is dysfunctional and authoritarian. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Staunch social conservatives like Phillips see no hypocrisy in pontificating about what people should do in their bedrooms, while whingeing about the repressive regimes of foreigners.

Social liberalism is all about destroying the normative Judeo-Christian moral principles of society which social conservatism is all about defending

It is debatable whether Judeo-Christian values are the ‘normative’ morals of society. And even if they are, it does not logically follow that they should warrant special merit. Phillips believes that every other set of values, especially secular, should be subordinate to a strict moral code arising from the precepts of Christianity and Judaism, as she sees them.

What the marriage zealots have forgotten to mention is the status of being single. If they were to get the dispensations for marriage they so desperately want, the single person would be penalised simply for being single. Widow, divorcee, person who can’t find a partner, let alone a spouse: they would all find themselves marginalised for not being married. This would be a bizarre and illogical outcome, and it exposes the flawed reasoning of bigoted columnists like Phillips.

For a woman whose journalistic output consists of so much criticism of radical Islam, there is a lot in her post which would have the Taleban nodding in agreement.