Newsround

David Laws

Inevitably, David Laws has been in the news a great deal.  Apparently, he paid £40000 of tax-payers' money to his partner, and it's against the rules.  Laws and his partner are gay, and he didn't want to 'blow his cover' by not claiming the rent back.  Hmm.  It came as no surprise that some politicians and media types immediately saw this as another sign of homophobia.  (Nonsense: if his partner had been female it would still have been against the rules, it would still have been theft and he would still have had to resign. )  It's no surprise that large parts of the chatterati think a completely different set of rules apply to homosexuals; they need to learn it isn't so.  Gays (at least some of them - see below) don't want the same rights as everyone else - they want more.  In particular, it seems, Laws didn't want his devout Catholic parents to know he was gay.  I'd guess they suspected!  But even if not, going into public life is not the way to keep anything secret.  Can you imagine what the uproar would have been if Laws had been - say - Evangelical?  And didn't want his devout Catholic parents to know?  And had pocketed £40000 to keep it from them?

What was a bit more of a surprise was that some of the gay community agreed, and said so (see here for an example).  They were shamed that Laws tried to use his sexuality to explain away his theft: rightly so. 

But what's truly appalling about this is that both Cameron and Clegg are reported as describing Laws as a man of 'complete integrity'.  Integrity means 'an integrated whole' - WYSIWIG (what you see is what you get).  It also means honest, moral, not deceitful.  'Uprightness, honesty, purity' (Chambers).  A man who's lying to his family about a fundamental part of his life is not 'an integrated whole'; he's not upright.  And a man who takes money he's not entitled to in order to keep that deceit going isn't 'upright, honest, pure'. 

But apparently Cameron and Clegg think otherwise.  So - if they're going to act with integrity - didn't we ought to ask what it is they mean by it?

             

Joan Bakewell

             

Dame Joan Bakewell is a 77  year-old journalist, former lover of Harold Pinter, once described as 'the thinking man's crumpet' and the lady who once told Lloyd-Jones that his views were old-fashioned.  She was also a vocal opponent of Mary Whitehouse, whose Christian convictions led her to head up a 'clean up tv' campaign in the sixties.  The Mail online reports:

     For decades the late Mrs Whitehouse was the self-appointed moral watchdog of Britain. She saw  television as the vanguard of the so-called 'permissive society' of the Sixties, bringing violence, sex and bad language into the living rooms of the nation.

    The puritanical campaigner warned of the de-sensitising effect of showing violence and gratuitous sex, saying it would create a more violent and sexualised society.

    But Dame Joan was part of the 1960s generation who thought the old guard were foolish prudes.

But now, in 'an astonishing u-turn' Dame Joan hates to admit it but now thinks Whitehouse was right.  Of course she was: and only time and eternity will show how many other things Christians have been right on.

And finally:

Fergie was drunk when she offered to sell access to Prince Andrew, she confessed in 'that interview' with Opray.  Oh, that's OK then - except that it isn't, surely?  Why should being guilty of two sins (mistakes, indiscretions, errors of judgement - whatever you want to call them) carry less disapproval than being guilty of just one?

The thought seems to be: well, you're not responsible for your behaviour when you're drunk.  Sorry - but yes, you are.  And you're responsible for getting drunk in the first place.

Do I sound a bit priggish today?  Sorry.  But...

I'm sorry, but I don't understand... (#1)

So, Israel has been enforcing a blockade on Gaza for some years now.  Let's leave others to argue whether the blockade is legal, moral, or serving any purpose.  There it is.  And a number of (apparently) humanitarians  decide to breach it in six ships.

Now, what do those 'humanitarians' think Israel is going to do?  Stand aside and say 'Oh, well, if you insist'?  Of course not; they're going to enforce it.  So five of the six ships wisely turn aside into Ashdod to be searched by the Israelis.  One ship continues.

Now, what do those 'humanitarians' think Israel is going to do?  Stand aside and say, 'Oh, well, if you really insist'?  Of course not: they're going to enforce the blockade in the only way now open to them (short of sinking the ship) - they're going to board the ship.  And as they do so - as Israeli commandos descend onto the deck - they're attacked by the 'humanitarians' beneath them.  That's not propaganda - it can clearly be seen on video.

Now, what do those same 'humanitarians' think the commandos are going to do at this point?  Climb back off board and say 'Oh, well, we didn't know you felt that strongly about it!'?  Of course not; they're going to defend themselves.

And this is the Israelis, remember.  They're not famed for 'turning the other cheek'.  They're not famed for moderate responses.  They are famed for getting the job done.  So they defend themselves.  Tragically - but inevitably - a significant number of 'humanitarians' are killed or injured.

I don't understand: what did they expect?  Why is the world up in arms - which nation, enforcing a blockade, would allow it to be breached?  Or when its soldiers were attacked would expect them to curl up and die?

I'm sorry - I really don't understand.  Is 'humanitarian' a synonym for 'stupid'?  Or is Melanie Phillips right - that the whole thing was a terror ambush?

There are lots of things I don't understand...

Update

Oh, look; the video  'appears to contradict the protesters' claims that they offered no violence to the special forces soldiers as they stormed the boat.'  Yes, it does, doesn't it?