Wednesday - March 31, 2010

Homosexual cruising in a park is merely, “social networking.” Another thing for straights to accept

First of all my thanks to Drew.  I have the hard copy of this story from the Telegraph, but just could not find the darn thing on line.  Use of wrong key words maybe but Drew found the damn thing and so ... H/T to our own at BMEWS.

I think we’re all of us are old enough to understand what the term “cruising” used here means. Not that hetros haven’t been known to use the woods for things other then a pleasant evening stroll in the woods. But I have never heard of straights objecting to something that might challenge the privacy of whoopee in the woods. This must take a prize of some kind but I’m not sure what sort yet.  Oh yeah.  This is the very first time I have ever seen buggery described as

Open air sex is risk to restaurant plans as gay group claim ‘post dusk social networking’ could be hit

By Wayne Bontoft

Concerns have been raised that plans to open a riverboat restaurant on the River Nene in Northampton could clash with ‘cruisers and cottagers’ who indulge in open air sex in a nearby car park.

Members of Northampton Borough Council’s panning committee will discuss plans to open the floating restaurant close to Midsummer Meadows, near Bedford Road, next week.

But in a report which will be shown to committee members, council planning officer, Richard Boyt, said both Northamptonshire Police and the Northants Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Alliance (NLGBA) had raised concerns about allowing the restaurant to open in an area which is renowned for people taking part in outdoor sex sessions.

He warned councillors: “Northamptonshire Police have noted the potential clash with ‘cruisers and cottagers’ who frequent nearby areas.”

Discussing similar concerns raised by the NLGBA, he added: “The NLGBA states that a commercial activity will harm the openness, the semi-natural character of the meadows, and the freedom of the area.

“Further they state that if the ‘post dusk social networking’ is displaced elsewhere this may be an area of concern.”

Despite the concerns of the two groups, the planning official said their worries should not prevent the restaurant from opening and added that he believed it would actually improve the Midsummer Meadows area.

He said: “The objections regarding commercial activity in an open area and the displacement of current activities from the NLGBA are understood and noted.

“But they do not outweigh the importance and benefit of the improvements to public safety which introducing activity to this public open space will bring.”

If the development is allowed, the floating restaurant would have three decks, be about 75ft long and 20ft tall.

The council’s planning committee will make a final decision on the scheme next week, but Mr Boyt said he thought the scheme should be allowed.

He said: “The proposed restaurant will enhance the River Nene with a leisure destination that’s in keeping with its surroundings and poses little or no threat to the vitality and viability of the town centre.”

Plans for the floating restaurant were last considered in 2007, when it was suggested up to 60 people at a time could eat and drink onboard the boat. But the 2007 scheme was withdrawn to give the developers more time to consider their plans.

social networking source

Posted by peiper     on 03/31/2010 at 04:50 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Gay Gay Gay! • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - March 23, 2010

Here’s one to think about.  The law is the law. Read the story, use the link and see comments there.

So then BMEWS. What do you think on this subject?  Was she right? Does she really have that right, being a public business, even if it is her home. ??

If discrimination is against the law, and it is, then she broke it. Maybe she can’t say it out loud but when she saw these two creeps, maybe her stomach turned and she just didn’t want them. Whatever.  Someone in comments at the Mail where i found this, has an interesting observation.  He says that being her home doesn’t exempt her from the other rules and safety/fire regs. She can’t say no I won’t install fire alarms or safety devices because it’s also my private home. So therefore, she can’t discriminate against a couple of really disgusting GAK inducing homos.  It figures and is no surprise that the creeps and scum making calls and threatening her and her family over this are so busy insuring their right to IMPOSE themselves on someone who clearly doesn’t want them.  I’d be willing to bet money that not all those calls and threats are even coming from the homosexual community. Some surely are of course. Nope.  I’d bet that the majority of them are threats and calls from those wonderful umin rights campaigners who are outraged and insulted on behalf of the homosexuals. And we know they really aren’t insulted at all.  They just live to have a cause to be outraged over. Otherwise, they have no life.  And I wish they didn’t.

A GAK INDUCING COUPLE. SEE EM HERE

We’ve been vilified for turning away gays queers, say Christian B&B couple

By Daily Mail Reporter

A Christian bed-and-breakfast owner is facing legal action for breaching discrimination laws after turning away a gayreally weird couple.

Susanne Wilkinson said it was ‘against her convictions’ to let the couple share a double bed in the home where she lives with her husband and children.

But she was reported to police after refusing a room to Michael Black, 62, and John Morgan, 56.

And her stand attracted a furious response from gayhomosexual rights campaigners.

Last night the Wilkinsons, who are in their 50s, were under siege from abusive phone calls, text messages and emails.

Among the messages was a threat to burn down their home in the quiet village of Cookham, Berkshire.

The incident unfolded on Friday when exams consultant Mr Black and Liberal Democrat councillor Mr Morgan arrived at the £75-a-night bed and breakfast following a theatre trip.

Mrs Wilkinson admitted she had made assumptions in expecting a man and a woman when she took a booking from a Mr Black. She said she invited the men in before explaining ‘courteously’ why she could not offer them the room.

She insisted she was not homophobic and would have offered two single rooms, but the guest house was fully booked.

Her husband Francis, a former City worker, said it was a question of living by their faith.

‘We live according to our values and our Christian beliefs. We are not homophobic,’ he said.

‘Of course everybody has the freedom to live as they choose but we feel that in our own home we have every right to say no to something we don’t agree with.’

Defending his wife, he said she would have explained the situation ‘gently’. ‘We are sorry for the distress that was caused to them,’ he added.

Last night the Wilkinsons, who are in their 50s, were under siege from abusive phone calls, text messages and emails.

Among the messages was a threat to burn down their home in the quiet village of Cookham, Berkshire.

The incident unfolded on Friday when exams consultant Mr Black and Liberal Democrat councillor Mr Morgan arrived at the £75-a-night bed and breakfast following a theatre trip.

Mrs Wilkinson admitted she had made assumptions in expecting a man and a woman when she took a booking from a Mr Black. She said she invited the men in before explaining ‘courteously’ why she could not offer them the room.

She insisted she was not homophobic and would have offered two single rooms, but the guest house was fully booked.

Her husband Francis, a former City worker, said it was a question of living by their faith.

‘We live according to our values and our Christian beliefs. We are not homophobic,’ he said.

‘Of course everybody has the freedom to live as they choose but we feel that in our own home we have every right to say no to something we don’t agree with.’

Defending his wife, he said she would have explained the situation ‘gently’. ‘We are sorry for the distress that was caused to them,’ he added.

Swiss-born Mrs Wilkinson, a former air hostess, said: ‘People just take it for granted that their lifestyle will be accepted wherever they go.

‘If they had gone to a hotel I think it would probably be different, but this is my house, we live here with our children - it’s our home that’s the difference.’

Posted by peiper     on 03/23/2010 at 02:26 PM   
Filed Under: • Daily Life • DIVERSITY BS • FREEDOM • Gay Gay Gay! • UK •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - February 05, 2010

give us your tired and really poor and even aids infected coz conservatives care about votes

Sure they do. Just like all politicians. 

Hey, since I don’t vote here my opinion is worth less then nothing.  I’ll give it anyway.

I think the head of the cons. party here (Tories) is dreadfully wrong if he wants to force faith schools to teach that homosexuality is OKAY.
I don’t want to get into an argument on the subject of sex or odd ppl but come on.  There are folks who are not necessarily haters of anyone but believe that homosexuality is a moral and religious issue.  Their ministers are not preaching jihad against those people but don’t believe it’s a normal lifestyle and certainly do not want to teach children that it’s simply another of life’s choices.  So when the head of the Conservative party here says he would ” force faith schools to teach pupils there was nothing wrong with being gay,” I’d say he was skating on pretty thin ice.  I might be dead wrong on that but it’s how I see it.

I’m not trained in the field and so shouldn’t spout opinions on things I’ve no experience with.  Like parenthood. But it just seems to me that if I were a parent and had a child in a faith based school, or any school for that matter, I would be darned uncomfortable having strangers “teach” my kid that homosexuality was an okay and normal thing.  I’m not convinced at the same time however, that telling a kid it’s normal will turn him or her into that state of being.  I mean, wouldn’t they have to be oriented that way to begin with?  Sensitive damn subject and glad I’m not and never was a parent.  That is a MAJOR responsibility I was happy to pass on.  But I sure do sympathize with people who are parents in todays world.  I think their job is far harder then it ever was before. And much harder to supervise their offspring too.  Kudos to those who manage it well.

Cameron: Gay refugees from Africa should be given asylum in UK

By Daniel Martin

Gay refugees from Africa should be granted asylum in the UK, David Cameron has said.

The Tory leader suggested that homosexuals should be allowed to stay in Britain if their lives would be put in danger were they sent home.

Under immigration rules, gay men are often sent back to countries with homophobic regimes - and advised to keep their sexuality a secret in case local police attack them.

But in an interview with gay magazine Attitude, Mr Cameron said the rules should be changed to protect homosexuals fleeing persecution.

He also promised to do more to stop rappers whose songs contain homophobic lyrics from performing in Britain, and said he would force faith schools to teach pupils there was nothing wrong with being gay.

However, he insisted there was no need for further legislation to protect homosexuals. It follows Harriet Harman’s attempts to push through her Equality Bill, which would put a duty on companies to promote the employment of gays.

Mr Cameron’s comments are the latest example of his conversion over gay rights.

Once a supporter of Margaret Thatcher’s Section 28 law, which banned the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality in schools, he changed his position after becoming Conservative leader in 2005.

Mr Cameron also called for an end to the ban on gays giving blood, saying: ‘Logic would dictate that it’s time to change.’

He promised to put in place ‘ground rules’ to make sure religious schools ‘teach equality’. But he came out against further equalities legislation, saying: ‘I think it’s much more about culture than about law now.’

THE REST IS HERE

Posted by peiper     on 02/05/2010 at 07:45 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Daily Life • Gay Gay Gay! • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - February 03, 2010

THE POPE AND HARRIET HARPERSON

More on the pope because .... 

I find it supremely interesting that while the pope is speaking about the religious rights of Christains and of course his own flock, the homosexual tide along with their allies are threatening to swamp his visit with protests and in fact want to have him banned.  What bloody cheek.
Where are the four thousand the protest groups say they will raise, when it comes to muslims taking to the streets or these unholy islamic preachers spewing hate and calling for sheria law in a country that does not belong to them. Where are they then?  What an easy target the pope is for these cowards.  You know damn well and probably they have already thought of it, that if they protest muslims, they are likely to get a boo-boo.  The pope on the other hand, won’t get physical.

Catholic adoption agencies will be forced to make a choice between what they believe religiously wrong, ie. adoption by same sex couples, and simply shutting their doors.  One or two it’s been reported, already have.

Lets say the pope is wrong to begin with for stating his opinion. Lets carry it further.  Let us say his position is all wrong from the getgo. He is not preaching hate.  He isn’t calling for the UK to convert to Rome. He doesn’t even call for the death of ppl who deny god.  In fact, he prays for them.  Why then should his visit be blocked by these soreheads?  These easily offended blockheads who look under their beds each night no doubt, thinking the odd one off insult might be lurking there.  BTW ... although he talks otherwise, the leader of this queer group of folks does not speak for all homosexuals.  There actually are some who agree with the pope on some major issues. 
Here’s a quote and the link to the whole very interesting editorial is HERE

First, it needs to be asked loud and clear: why would any gay people hoping to adopt children go to a Catholic agency? They don’t need to.

Rightly or wrongly, these days gay couples invariably have first place in the queue for an adopted child from state-run agencies because politically correct local authorities are attempting to make up for the years when gays were barred by the law from being adoptive parents.

Pope facing protests in Britain over his attack on Labour’s equality law

By Steve Doughty

Historians said it was the first direct intervention in British politics by a Pontiff in 300 years.

For centuries, Popes have avoided any comments on domestic politics to free British Catholics from the smear that they are loyal to a foreign power.

The National Secular Society yesterday signalled it would organise protests among gay groups, feminists, pro-abortion campaigners and victims of sexual abuse by priests.

‘He has already indicated that he will attack equal rights and promote discrimination.’

Prominent gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said: ‘The Pope’s criticism is a coded attack on the legal rights granted to women and gay people.

Benedict XVI said in his lecture that the effect of some equality legislation ‘has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance-with their beliefs’.

‘In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed,’ he said.

Miss Harman, in Cadiz for a conference of women’s ministers, said: ‘We have never insisted on non-discrimination legislation applying to religious jobs . . . however, when it comes to non-religious jobs, those organisations must comply with the law.’

more at the source here

This loony tune so badly wants EVERYONE to be her idea of equal, she is demanding that city councils and other bodies have numbers of women and racial minorities in jobs even where there aren’t the numbers to support her demand. For example, a town or village somewhere that just does not have the number or perhaps no muslims or black ppl and perhaps not a lot of females interested in office. No matter.  They MUST by her lights be represented anyway. Even if it means going outside the area to find them. 

Posted by peiper     on 02/03/2010 at 12:23 PM   
Filed Under: • Big Brother • Gay Gay Gay! • Religion • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - November 15, 2009

Lesbian parents better at raising children.  HEY BMEWS. BET YOU DIDN’T KNOW THAT.

Only know what I read in the papers and the paper reports this headline today.
That must make normal, traditional parents feel nice.

There have been stories over the months of child abuse to the point of death, where a kid has been abused by both mom and dad. So I suppose that if you wanted to use that extreme as an example, it could be fair to say a child would be better off with two loving adults that honestly did have their best interests at heart and were NOT abusers. Even if they were same sex couples.  And there are I’m sure people who are very child oriented, do love children, and do want to be parents.
But I just can’t shake the old conservative and traditional mindset that a kid really does need a mom and a dad. I can not imagine a more troublesome, mind bending, awesome responsibility then bringing a child into the world and raising it. 

From The Sunday Times
November 15, 2009

Maurice Chittenden

Lesbians make better parents than conventional couples, according to a director of the government’s parenting academy.
Stephen Scott, director of research at the National Academy for Parenting Practitioners, told a meeting last week that the latest research showed that children of such couples did better in life.

Speaking at the launch at the think tank Demos of a report on the influence of character on life, Scott said: “Lesbians make better parents than a man and a woman.”

His arguments are supported by experts who have found, over years of research, that children brought up by female couples are more aspirational and more confident in championing social justice. They show no more tendencies towards homosexuality than the offspring of heterosexual parents.

Such strong endorsement from the government’s main agency for parenting will give a boost to gay parents. The speech from the academy, set up by the Department for Children, Schools and Families in 2007, will alarm traditional family supporters and those who raise concerns about the lack of a father figure in a child’s life.

Parenting groups have recently been accused of turning into vocal advocates for the tiny minority of parents who are gay couples. There was a row this year when the British Association for Adoption and Fostering described opponents of gay adoption as “retarded homophobes”. It had to pulp copies of a guide using the phrase.

However, more than a third of people now believe a lesbian couple can be at least as good parents as a man and a woman, according to the annual British Social Attitudes report.
Research at Birkbeck college, part of London University, and at Clark University in Massachusetts, says there is no evidence to show children of lesbian parents are disadvantaged in any way.

By the nature of their relationship, lesbian couples cannot have children by accident. They use a sperm donor, often a gay man, or adopt. The child then has two “mothers”.

Daughters of lesbians are more likely to aspire to professions that were traditionally considered male, such as doctors or lawyers.

Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Dick Cheney, the former American vice-president, who is expecting her second baby later this month, said in a recent interview: “Every piece of remotely responsible research that has been done in the last 20 years has shown there is no difference between children raised by same-sex parents and children raised by opposite-sex parents. What matters is being raised in a stable, loving environment

SOURCE

Posted by peiper     on 11/15/2009 at 11:12 AM   
Filed Under: • Gay Gay Gay! • UK •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - November 14, 2009

Heterosexual couple want to ‘marry’ in civil partnership to protest against ‘anti-gay’ marriage

This is actually a nothing full of beans will go nowhere kind of story.  I suspect the Telegraph only ran it because they needed filler.
So just why am I posting it here?  Ah .... Because not only is couple a pair of idiots looking for their 15 minutes ...
Read the article and you’ll quickly spot at least one reason this place is doomed as long as jerks like this belong to .....

A heterosexual couple hope to become the first in the UK to “marry” in a civil relationship to protest against their belief that marriage is “apartheid” against homosexuals.

Nick Britten
Sat. Telegraph

Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle, both 25, have so far duped Islington Council by registering their intent only using their initials and surnames.

The civil servants, who live in Holloway, north London, and have been together nearly four years, said they want the same legal rights as a husband and wife, but did not want to enter an institution that is closed to homosexuals.

The couple are to give ‘notice of their intention to form a civil partnership’ at Islington Town Hall on November 24. The venue is one of the most popular in Britain for gay ‘marriages’.

Miss Doyle said that marriage was “an apartheid of sorts” because it excluded homosexuals.

She said: “Getting married would condone that and the whole idea of common law partnerships is an urban myth. They don’t exist, so we are excluded from the legal benefits.

“For Tom and I a civil partnership is the obvious alternative but we can’t have it.”

Mr Freeman added: “‘We are at the stage other couples might usually get married but we feel the only course of action is to campaign for desegregation.”

Under the 2004 Civil Partnership Act, only members of the same sex can enter into a civil partnership.

A spokesman for Islington Council said the ceremony would not be allowed to take place.

“Like all councils we must follow the requirements of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which states that to qualify for a Civil Partnership, couples must be of the same sex. So our hands are tied,” he said.

SOURCE

So this pair of schmucks are civil servants huh. Oh boy. 

Posted by peiper     on 11/14/2009 at 08:30 AM   
Filed Under: • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Gay Gay Gay! • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - October 10, 2009

One gay man, two lesbians, a three-legged cat and a poisoned curry plot to kill.

Pretty bizarre and not only that.  What’s it say about queer solidarity?

One gay man, two lesbians, a three-legged cat and a poisoned curry plot
By Jaya Narain

A gay queer man tried to poison his lesbian neighbours by putting slug pellets into their curry after he was accused of kidnapping their three-legged cat.
Gary Stewart, 37, had been at loggerheads with Marie Walton and Beverley Sales for months.
But things looked brighter when he made a peace offering of some curry, claiming he had ordered too much from the Indian takeaway.

When the women started to eat, they found the curry studded with slug pellets.  They called the police and Stewart was arrested.
He appeared before magistrates in Manchester where he admitted attempting to poison the two women on September 22.
He denied a further charge of making threats to kill.

Last night it emerged that Miss Walton, a full-time mother, and Miss Sales, a goods vehicle driver, had been the victims of an apparent hate campaign by Stewart at their home in Denton, Manchester.  Stewart is even alleged to have kidnapped the family’s three-legged cat, Amber, and dumped her in a village miles away. The cat was eventually found after posters were put up with her photograph. She was found three miles away being cared for by a woman who had taken her in.

Last night neighbours said the alleged harassment had left Miss Walton and Miss Sales distraught. The attempt to poison them with slug pellets was the final straw.
‘It has been nothing short of a nightmare and I hope this brings things to an end because what those two girls have had to endure these past years has been horrendous,’ one neighbour said. ‘He was abusive to them and made their lives a misery.
‘And to cap it off, he kidnapped their cat and dumped it on the streets.’

Slug pellets - which normally contain the chemical metaldehyde - can be extremely dangerous to animals and children.
But the chemical is classed as being ‘moderately hazardous’ by the World Health Organisation and would not normally kill an adult. 

Residents said that when Stewart had initially moved in with his partner, Paul Kleisier, several years ago they had been perfect neighbours.
But over time they became ‘vindictive’ and began arguments with residents over petty matters.
Stewart’s partner, 43, is thought to have become seriously ill and died this summer.
Stewart is due to appear again before Manchester magistrates at a later date.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218880/One-gay-man-lesbians-legged-cat-poisoned-curry-plot.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0TXKyECP2

Posted by peiper     on 10/10/2009 at 07:49 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • CULTURE IN DECLINE • Gay Gay Gay! • UK •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - September 03, 2009

A fresh bowl of Crowder

Posted by Drew458     on 09/03/2009 at 05:18 PM   
Filed Under: • Gay Gay Gay! • Humor •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

The latest thing from Ben and Jerry?

H/T jamesdelingpole.com
I visit the above almost daily. I appreciate his take on tree huggers and listened to him on radio last week.
Since I’ve never been a big fan of this ice cream (Green and Black is far better), I hadn’t noticed this.  But I do agree. Why promote any message on a product like this?  But then again, I guess it’s their property, they can do as they please. Especially since they have already made their millions many times over.

I still think it is very wrong.  Jeez ... I am outta date. huh?

I do NOT want my freaking ice cream tub to tell me gay marriage is a great and wonderful thing. Which is more or less what Ben & Jerry’s has done with one of its flavours. Or flavors, if you will.

As you see, to celebrate the legalization of gay marriage in its achingly worthy, nauseatingly PC home state Vermont, Ben & Jerry’s has temporarily changed the name of its Chubby Hubby brand to Hubby Hubby.

What is my objection to this innocent bit of fun? Simple. I believe confectionary should be politics-free. Just because a pair of hippie ice cream makers happen to think gay marriage is an OK thing doesn’t mean that all their customers should have a message they may well find deeply unpalatable rammed down their throats. I felt much the same way about their President-Obama-endorsing “Yes Pecan” flavour earlier this year. “Shut up! Shut up! SHUT UP already!” I wanted to scream at them. “Your job is to placate women, distract movie audiences, and bribe children. It is NOT your job to change the world.”

But I can tell you now there’s something worse out there than Ben & Jerry’s. Much, much worse. So bad in fact that I vow never ever again to buy it for my kids even though it tastes quite nice and offers reasonable value. I refer to the horror that is Mackies ice cream,(http://www.mackies.co.uk/) which now uses its website to disseminate propaganda for the wind industry and which decorates its tubs with scenes of nature dotted with wind turbines - as if to suggest that these monstrosities have become an integral, nay even a desirable part of the British landscape.

“You can feel extra good about enjoying Mackies ice cream because it is made with renewable energy” claims their website. “Mackies business is powered by 3 wind turbines. We’d like to contribute towards protection of the environment for future generations of ice cream consumers!”

Oh really? And what about all those future generations of ice cream consumers who might have preferred the beautiful corner of Aberdeenshire where the Mackies have farmed “for four generations” not to have their horizon despoiled by swirling great wind turbines?

Posted by peiper     on 09/03/2009 at 06:22 AM   
Filed Under: • Gay Gay Gay! • UK •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - August 17, 2009

It’s being called, “Pink Diplomacy” and yes , the taxpayer will fund it. Like there’s a choice?

So these folks deface their flag and make it pink, which should outrage Brits because that flag is supposed to represent the country and not just one small but highly vocal group of misfits and deviants.  This pink outrage does not represent any Brit I personally know. Hey I admit it. I’m a dinosaur.

I just don’t believe a national flag should be taken so much for granted and used that way. I even wonder if it’s right when ppl use the stars and stripes as bathing suits.  I know they mean no harm in it. Hell, I don’t even think the homosexuals intend any harm in it.  I just don’t believe it’s right.

Jeesh I got long winded there but I have strong feeling about this stuff.

This country is not out of the financial woods by any means. There are serious problems here, the ppl are being told not to be wasteful yadda,yadda while govt. payrolls save nothing. Oh sure, take some cash away from some program or end another program. But that’s so that more councilors and ministers can take “fact finding” trips to warm climes and toast one another on the success of another nice holiday on the txpayer.
So while things are tight and money is short, this fraken govt. somehow finds the money somewhere to:

FUND FOREIGN GAY QUEER RIGHTS CAMPAIGNS IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
This, they have money for.

Foreign Office Minister takes ‘pink diplomacy’ to anti-gay nations.

The gay Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant is championing a controversial drive to fund equal-rights activists in homophobic regimes.

British missions in countries such as Jamaica, where homosexual acts are punishable by long jail terms, and Nigeria, where they can lead to the death penalty, are being encouraged to “support progress” by financing gay pride marches and legal challenges from local campaigners.

As well as targeting Commonwealth countries, “pink diplomacy” will extend to eastern Europe, where gays have suffered brutal attacks from far-right groups. Opportunities to tackle discrimination in ultra-conservative nations, such as Iran, are also being considered - cautiously.

The move risks a backlash from countries where support for homosexuality runs contrary to state teaching and religious beliefs.

TIMES ON LINE

So now as if that isn’t enough not so very good policy ..... This guy does a deep throat by sticking his foot in it by saying that,

Terrorism can be ‘justified’ in some circumstances. 

He also said in an interview that “there were circumstances where terror was ‘effective’.”

See the problem with that is, this fellow just happens to be , The Foreign Secretary. At least for now.

Foreign Secretary, David Miliband

THE WHOLE STORY IS HERE

Posted by peiper     on 08/17/2009 at 09:38 AM   
Filed Under: • Blog Stuff • Gay Gay Gay! • Government • Stoopid-People • UK •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - August 06, 2009

Left Coast Loonies

Is this true? If it is, Horry Clap!

Next time you’re at Union Square and are just dying for some peanut brittle, get ready for a shocker:  See’s Candies, which for years has provided a chocolaty outpost in one of the kiosks in the plaza, could not meet city demands and left Union Square.

See’s originally leased the kiosk from the San Francisco Parks Trust, but the kiosk was later transferred to The City, said Rich Hillis, deputy director of Recreation and Parks.

After it changed hands, See’s lease came up, at which point The City discovered that See’s was not providing all of the same benefits for domestic partners that it does for spouses – something The City requires of all companies it does business with.

See’s declined to change its policy and the lease was not renewed, Hillis said. The last candy morsel was vacated from the premises June 5.

Famous chocolate vendor See’s Candy chose to close one of its most prominent and historic outposts in Union Square, the heart of San Francisco, rather than comply with the city’s nondiscrimination requirements.

See’s Candy refuses to offer equal benefits to LGBT employees, which makes it ineligible to renew its lease from the city under San Francisco’s 1996 landmark equal benefits law. Originated and orchestrated by EQCA’s own Geoff Kors, it was one of the first ordinances of its kind, and inspired similar measures across the country.

Yeah, right, sure. In the heart of San Francisco, the company, which has been there forever, is going to act like that. Um, no.

But according to See’s ...

See’s Candies was mentioned in an article in the San Francisco Examiner written by Katie Worth that was published on June 20, 2009. We first learned of the article on Monday June 22nd. The article is factually untrue and the inaccuracies were addressed with the Examiner which prompted them to edit the story.

For years See’s Candies has provided domestic partner benefits including health insurance, with some of these benefits negotiated in labor agreements with unions representing See’s workers. These benefits continue to be offered today to union and non-union employees of See’s.

Recently, our Union Square location lease was taken over by the City of San Francisco who has additional requirements for benefits beyond those offered by See’s. As any change to the benefits offered would require opening all related union contracts for negotiation, and the added benefits required were relatively minor and not consistent with our overall benefit plan, See’s attempted to seek a compromise with the City on its required benefit package. Unable to agree, and not wishing to renegotiate the union benefits offered to a single store in San Francisco, we elected to not renew our Union Square lease when it expired.

See’s was not “evicted”, and we do offer health and welfare coverage for domestic partners on the same basis as for spouses. The allegations in the article were not discussed with See’s prior to the article being run.

So, unable to comply with YET ANOTHER layer of demanded/required benefits, they did a John Gault and closed the shop. In a way, GOOD FOR THEM. They do a killer mail order business anyway. Brick and mortar storefronts probably cost more than they take in.




But is it the truth? Is there another, darker motivation at work here? Some think so, and given the notice found stapled to the door, it may be. You see, See’s peanut brittle is the favorite candy of Warren Buffett. And Warren Buffett was involved with Enron ... [ step 1: collect underpants. step 3: profit! ] and was therefore the cause of 9/11. So the Troofers got their revenge! Laughing Squid provides all the details, and even an association map.

Twisted humor? Major sarcasm? Could be. But the shop was smack dab in the middle of tinfoil hat Mecca. Anything is possible.



BTW: See’s Candies is attempting to comply and renegotiate with the city. No word on whether they will return to that particular location if negotiations succeed. 

Posted by Drew458     on 08/06/2009 at 10:39 AM   
Filed Under: • Gay Gay Gay! • Humor •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - July 04, 2009

Prize Winning Headlines

Does the UK give out prizes for headlines? They ought to. Here’s a contender ...

One of Britain’s most historic cities, Canterbury, has been told it is sufficiently gay – after a complaint sparked a two-month investigation costing thousands of pounds.

A government watchdog decided that Canterbury in Kent does enough to promote homosexual culture, rejecting a complaint by local activists.

The Local Government Ombudsman – who asked for the city’s council to provide evidence of how it supported the gay community – said it was satisfied the pink pound was being catered for.

As part of the investigation, the council had to prove its inclusiveness by giving details of “touring plays and musicals, for example, which would be of interest to the LGBT community”.

And it had to show that it had “put forward suggestions for small events that it might help fund, as well as proposals for other events such as exhibitions”.

Rob Davies, spokesman for the council, said: “Obviously we’re delighted with the outcome of the investigation.

“We feel we do a great deal for the gay community in Canterbury and we have always tried to support various gay events and promotions.”

Yet another instance of a group demanding “equal rights” when what they really mean is “extra special rights that are more than equal”. Barf. But I just adore the headline.

Posted by Drew458     on 07/04/2009 at 10:04 AM   
Filed Under: • Gay Gay Gay! • UK •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - June 29, 2009

Parade of Pride for The Grotesque!  Yeah.  Queers in the news again. When are they ever out of it?

I thought I should start with a few comments from the paper’s readers rather then anything from me.  They say it better.
This just shows, doesn’t it, how bad things have become.
AND byw ... The Prime Minister’s wife, Sarah Brown, has announced she will take part in the London edition of this stupid self serving parade of pride for the grotesque!

Would they be paid to attend some event put on by the church??
- Tim, Liverpool UK,

Well that just about says all from this loony lefty commie society we live in, no wonder British people want the BNP to gain control and the Muslims want Sharia law.
- Jon, Teesside,

Why are they being paid at all to go on this march? If they want to take part then fine, they can do it in their own time, and not in uniform. Since when is the ambulance service there to be a political organisation?
- Argonaut, Manchester

Paramedics paid extra to go on gay queer pride march… regardless of their sexuality
By Ryan Kisiel

Ambulance staff are being offered overtime to take part in a gay homosexual march - regardless of their sexuality.
Dozens of paramedics, the majority of whom are heterosexual, are being encouraged to walk along Brighton’s seafront in their uniform at this year’s Pride festival.
They will be provided with refreshments and driven to and from the resort, all adding to the bill for the taxpayer

A paramedic who contacted the Daily Mail said South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Trust had decided to pay its workers £40 each to take part in their own time because it was feared that not enough would volunteer for the event.
The money is the equivalent of two hours’ overtime pay, although paramedics say the trust has recently stopped paying overtime while they are actually on duty, blaming financial pressure.

The trust, which covers parts of Kent, Sussex and Surrey, has put up posters around its headquarters advertising the August 1 march with an ambulance covered in rainbow-coloured balloons and offering staff free transport to Brighton.
One paramedic said: ‘People from the trust went last year but they all attended as volunteers. I heard that the turnout wasn’t very high and they wanted to get more people there.

‘They’ve had to bribe people with the overtime cash because the overwhelming majority of staff are straight and not totally comfortable about giving up their free time to go on a gay march.’

Tory MP Ann Widdecombe said: ‘It is unacceptable to use taxpayers’ money in this way, especially as it’s a political movement.
‘The fact that the ambulance service is having to bribe paramedics to go is even worse. It would be much better to let them take a day off so they can get refreshed before they have to start their vital work saving lives.

MORE AND PHOTOS HERE

NOW THEN IF THAT ISN’T ENOUGH FOR THESE PROFESSIONAL VICTIMS, WHO BRING SCORN ON THEMSELVES AND BLAME EVERYONE ELSE, THE PM’s WIFE IS NOW GETTING IN ON THE ACT. 

Sarah Brown is ‘to march in really odd Pride parade’

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 5:37 PM on 29th June 2009

Prime Minister’s wife Sarah Brown is planning to take part in the London Gay Pride parade, Downing Street has confirmed.

She will show her support for the gay and lesbian community by joining the 5,000-strong march on Saturday.

For security reasons Gordon Brown himself cannot take part, although he is planning to hold a reception at No.10 beforehand for Pride organisers and other gay and lesbian representatives. 

Mrs Brown, known as a PR wizard who can even make her husband look good, was last seen at the Glastonbury music festival promoting the White Ribbon Alliance - a campaign to make births in developing countries safer.

And now she hopes to join the two-week Pride festival featuring theatre, music, debate, art and entertainment to raise awareness of discrimination and the issues and difficulties affecting the lives of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender people around the world. 

A Downing Street spokesman said: ‘Sarah wanted to show her continued solidarity for the gay deviant community by taking part. 

‘But because of security considerations, the Prime Minister will not be able to march himself. 

‘Mr Brown will be showing his support at the reception on the morning of Pride.’

It is believed that this will be the first time a PM’s other half has taken part in Gay Pride, but it is not the first time Mr and Mrs Brown have expressed their support for gaydeviant equality. 

MORE PLUS PINK TANK PHOTO

Posted by peiper     on 06/29/2009 at 02:38 PM   
Filed Under: • Gay Gay Gay! • UK •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - May 08, 2009

Sneaky Bastards In New England

Yesterday:

Maine’s governor signed a freshly passed bill Wednesday approving gay marriage, making it the fifth state to approve the practice and moving New England closer to allowing it throughout the region.

New Hampshire legislators were also poised to send a gay marriage bill to their governor, who hasn’t indicated whether he’ll sign it. If he does, Rhode Island would be the region’s sole holdout.

Maine Gov. John Baldacci, a Democrat who hadn’t indicated how he would handle his state’s bill, quickly signed it.

“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Baldacci said in a statement read in his office. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”

The vote by the Maine Senate was 21-13, with one lawmaker absent. The bill authorizes marriage between any two people rather than between one man and one woman, as state law currently allows. The House had passed the bill Tuesday.

Today:

Couples anxious to wed under Maine’s new gay marriage law may have a long wait. A formal challenge to it has been filed, setting into motion plans for a possible public vote that could be months or more than a year away.

“We’re very disappointed,” said Steve Ryan of Buxton, who was looking forward to the new law with his partner, Jim Bishop. “We plan to get married as soon as we can. This is going to put our whole life on hold.”

Activists on both sides Thursday started working up strategies for campaigns leading up to a possible November referendum under a state constitutional provision known as the people’s veto.

“The wheels are turning,” Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, Maine’s chief election official, said after opponents filed an application that sets the stage for the challenge process ahead.

The deadline for opponents to collect at least 55,087 signatures will probably fall in mid-September, about the time the gay marriage law is due to take effect.

However, the law would be stayed as soon as the signatures are submitted for review by election officials. And the timing of when petitions are turned in will determine whether the referendum can be scheduled for this November or June 2010.

Marc Mutty of the Roman Catholic Diocese said challengers expect to get the go-ahead by May 21 to begin collecting signatures to get a referendum on the bill, which was signed Wednesday by Gov. John Baldacci.

Baldacci’s action preceded by only hours a vote by the New Hampshire Legislature that sanctioned gay marriage in that neighboring state, but Gov. John Lynch has not decided whether he’ll sign the bill.

The phone in Lynch’s reception room rang constantly Thursday with callers either pleading for him to sign the bill or veto it.

Marriage has been a binding act between a man and a woman since ... forever. Probably even before that. And the local religion is almost always involved, no matter what it is. There have been cultures that allowed a man to have several wives. There have even been a couple of cultures that allowed women to have multiple husbands. But as far as I know, no culture has EVER allowed the definition of marriage to encompass man-man, woman-woman, or groups. Or livestock. Or inanimate objects. Even Islam generally ... generally, Ok Aisha? ... generally even keeps the consummation of marriage between two people who have at least reached puberty. So arranged marriages between children, while being very very old school, don’t get down to the nitty-gritty until both parties are old enough. Marriage. It’s a hetero thing; you wouldn’t understand. We’re Straight, It’s Great, Get Used To It.

This is just one more ultra-liberal act of breaking down the brick wall of our culture. Straight out of the Marxist playbook too. I’m having a Vizzini moment: such a thing is inconceivable to me.

I’m very glad that the citizen’s of Maine are throwing a hissy fit, challenging this law, and demanding a referendum. NOTE TO STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATORS: Don’t take it upon yourselves to pass culture changing legislation. Some things DEMAND the people to make a choice on. And once that choice is made, you stick with what the people say. For at least a decade.

If given a choice, will the voters in Maine [ and in New Hampshire next ] vote for gay marriage? I don’t know. But let’s give them that choice, and let’s make an effort to get them educated on the topic first, and what the ramifications are, including the impact on health care costs if there are any, and whatever else.

Posted by Drew458     on 05/08/2009 at 10:52 AM   
Filed Under: • Gay Gay Gay! • News-Briefs •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner